Some folks who are still tangled up in the latin web are having a hard time understanding Nicene Monarchism so I thought I would provide a concise definition.
A Greek and English comparison of the Creed can be found here.
Ok so let’s walk through the Nicene Creed 325:
“We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,maker of all things visible and invisible;”
Ok, so there is one God and that one God is not a Trinity but the person of the Father. εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν: A NUMERIC QUALIFICATION NOT A GENERIC AFFIRMATION OF NATURE.
“And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,the Son of God,begotten from the Father, only-begotten,that is, from the substance of the Father”
Ok, then there is this other person who is not the Father. This person eternally emanates from the Father or is eternally at the Father’s side (John 1:18). The Logos, who, when made flesh was named Jesus Christ. And notice it says that he is FROM the substance of the Father. It does not say he IS the numeric substance of the Father.
“God from God,light from light,true God from true God”
Notice, not “εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν”, but “Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ”. That is, the Son is not the One God numerically but bares the nature of the One God generically.
“Consubstantial with the Father-ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί,”
Homoousios WITH the Father. Not monoousios AS the Father. That is, the Logos is a different being, not a different independent being or a separated being, but another being eternally inseparable from the Father that bares the nature of the Father. For more detail on this section see here, here , here and a critique of these articles here.
“But as for those who say, There was when He was not,and, Before being born He was not,and that He came into existence out of nothing,or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance,or created,or is subject to alteration or change- these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.”
Ok, so the Son is not a created being. He is co-eternal with the Father. He is not created from something outside the Father by divine fiat. He is the natural and eternal offspring of his Father. And notice the NC does not anathematize those who say that Jesus/Logos IS another numeric being than the Father. It anathematizes those who say that the Logos is OF another being than the Father. So Jesus is another being than the Father but Jesus is the natural offspring OF the Father’s essence, not a created being.
-1-.jpg)
Anglo Judaizer 
Why do people get upset with you? This seems pretty straightfoward. One question, though: You said here: “That is, the Logos is a different **being**, not a different independent being or a separated being,”
Ok: How is the term “being” being used with regard to the ousia of the Father-Son relation? Am I clear? I know it is a clunky way of asking.
Basically: does *being* here mean something besides *ousia*? Or: What is the difference between *being,* *ousia* , *essence*, and *substance*?
” How is the term “being” being used with regard to the ousia of the Father-Son relation? ”
>>>By different being I mean that the Son is a distinct numeric mind and will.
The relationship between them is emanation (Christian sense not Neoplatonic-One not infinite) not creation.
With reference to generic substance they are the same type of thing-homoousios. With reference to numeric substance they are two distinct numeric minds and wills.
In my Clarkian philosophy I would see essence as the being-the mind and will with respect to faculty. I also call this numeric nature. I would see nature or generic nature to refer to the ideas, or the thinking of that particular mind. Absolutely, the root of all generic nature is in the mind of the Father as the arche.
Hi Drake,
An excellent summation; it reminds me a lot of the “5 propositions” I published last year on the same day (March 27):
>>I. There is but one God, the Father.
II. There are in the Godhead three (not mere names or modes) truly distinct persons (hypostases)—the Father, the Son or Word of God and the Holy Ghost.
III. These three Persons are ‘one’ in ousia, essence (‘one’ used here in a generic sense)—i.e. the three Persons are ὁμοούσιος (homoousios), not μονοούσιος (monoousios).
IV. There is but one beginning/cause (μοναρχία, monarchia), one font/fountain or principle of Divinity (πηγὴ θεότητος), God the Father, Who alone is aὐτόθεος, God of and from Himself; the Son and Holy Spirit deriving their Divinity (ousia, essence) and personhood from Him; the Son by generation, and the Holy Spirit by procession.
V. Because the Son and Holy Spirit derive both their Divinity (ousia, essence) and personhood (hypostasis), from God the Father, this derivation is not limited only to the person of the Father, or the Divinity of the Father; but rather, from both the person and Divinity of the Father.>>
[Link to original post]
Grace and peace,
David