Calvinism and the Nicene Creed

[GodsGrace]

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying and some sects do have their own creeds or "statements of faith." Using their own creeds makes perfect sense. What does not make sense is using the creed of another religion that professes faith in a Church one positively rejects.

I may be wrong,,,I've never really thought about this but you bring up an interesting point...
Is a statement of faith the same as a creed?

A creed (also known as a confession, symbol, or statement of faith) is a statement of the shared beliefs of a religious community in the form of a fixed formula summarizing core tenets. ... One of the most widely used creeds in Christianity is the Nicene Creed, first formulated in AD 325 at the First Council of Nicaea
(from Wikipedia)

Each denomination does have a statement of faith....
And then most of them also accept the Nicene Creed.

Do most protestants positively reject Catholicism, or just some of its doctrine?

Why do you call Christianity another religion?
Or why do you call Catholicism another religion?

Both Catholicism and Protestantism are Christian.


I think the fact that other denominations have held on to the Nicene Creed is a great sign of the catholic faith keeping our Christianity alive and safe throughout history.

It IS difficult to understand why you're so concerned with this fact.

Hardly, since you cannot arrive at orthodox Trinitarian theology using sola Scripture. Recall Arius and his followers accused the Catholics of going outside of Scripture to define their dogma of the Trinity.

"...[the Arians] blaming the Nicene bishops for their use of phrases not in Scripture..." - St. Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians, I.9.30

"...the Arians, after all the past detection of unsoundness and futility in their arguments, nay, after the general conviction of their extreme perverseness, still to complain like the Jews, 'Why did the Fathers at Nicea use terms not in Scripture, 'Of the essence' and 'One in essence?'" - St. Athanasius, De Decretis, 1:1

Furthermore, they wouldn't be professing faith in a Church they don't believe in.

I agree totally. One cannot arrive at the Trinitarian doctrine unless one studies the bible and for this theologians are necessary. I have often said this in fact,,.

Other doctrine cannot be understood using sola scripturea...
I know of two persons on this forum that cannot accept the standard understanding of the make-up of man: Body, Soul, and Spirit,,,because they do not see this plainly in scripture and because the word "heart" was used in the O.T. for different meanings. Sometimes it meant the soul, and sometimes it meant the spirit....

I am not arguing marriage was forbidden in the early Church. Re-read what you posted, as it supports exactly what I have written.

Again, marriage in the early Church was a concession. The clergy who were married were expected to practice clerical continence. (See Nicea, Canon 3 and the document you quoted above.)

Celibacy was certainly practiced in the early Church, as the majority of the Apostolic Fathers were celibate. However, celibacy as a rule came to the Latin rite much later.

I've always know that it came about gradually....
anyway, we have what we have and it doesn't really affect anyone except those that choose to go into the priesthood. (and Deaconate).j I don't believe this will change.

 

[GodsGrace]

True, the Jews despised the Samaritans for intermarrying, but as you know, it goes back to Solomons day as even Solomon intermarried and worse yet, offered his own children to the flame. This is why the kingdom later split, and the Samaritans can be traced back to.

But i degrees, the reason that the Jews and Samaritans despised one another is secondary to Jesus story. You had two groups which despised one another, yet Jesus tells the story in a way that forces a man of God with good reason to hate another tribe to actually see beyond the social stigma and animosity between the two groups and see his ' enemy' as an individual.

In other words, a Muslim could very well be your neighbor.

LOL
One is!
And she's very nice and we were friendly till she had her children and is now pretty busy.

Individually I see each one as a person. I love all humanity but I like each person as a friend as the come....some could be a friend and some just cannot for different reasons.

I just don't think this removes the fact that they are the aggressors.

It's kind of like when Palestiinians state that they'd like to push the Jews into the Sea. Doesn't this make THEM the aggressors?
So how to have peace when one side wants to see the other side dead?

I just wish Islam would TRULY be a religion of peace.

 

[stovebolts]

LOL
One is!
And she's very nice and we were friendly till she had her children and is now pretty busy.

Individually I see each one as a person. I love all humanity but I like each person as a friend as the come....some could be a friend and some just cannot for different reasons.

I just don't think this removes the fact that they are the aggressors.

It's kind of like when Palestiinians state that they'd like to push the Jews into the Sea. Doesn't this make THEM the aggressors?
So how to have peace when one side wants to see the other side dead?

I just wish Islam would TRULY be a religion of peace.

I wonder if the Muslims thought the same when the Pope started a holy war with them?
It's almost ironic in a since. Rome separated the church in 1054 and not soon after decides to take back the holy land and wage war and murder innocent Muslims just because of their religion. It wasn't the Muslims agitating the Christians, rather, it was Rome waging war and justifying it through their religion.

And make no mistake, Christians who lived in the same Muslim communities Rome was waging war on took up arms against Rome and died with their Muslim neighbors.

In modern vernacular, one could say Rome had become radicalized.

Here is the point, not all Christians supported Rome and some fought against Rome.

We see the same situation in modern times with Islam.

You really should go back and read Niblo posts as he has already given us this insight and he makes a similar case as you by distancing himself from the radicals. He has also quoted Muslim leaders supporting their local Christians and using the Quran to shame ISIS for their bloody tirade.

 

[Anto9us2]

I say Nicene Creed was done by a Unified church, unified in the sense that it was far from being split up Catholic/Orthodox. United against Arianism, which did not totally vanish in some parts of Europe until 6th and 7th centuries. But at time of CREED, 325-381, Arianism was strong and almost took over.

I do not "positively reject" the Catholic Church, it, like Orthodox, is simply ANOTHER DENOMINATION.

The Creed is just as much Orthodox as Catholic.

I am Wesleyan Quadrilateral, rather than Sola Scriptura.

I think the point is SILLY that Protestants are accepting a CREED from a church they rejected. Nonsense.

 

[Truthfrees]

The Hadith teach to follow the example of Mohammad. When you are in the minority, play the part of the victim and seek the protection of infidels. When you are a stronger community, seek to provoke the society around you (as Mohammad harassed the Temple services of the city that was protecting him). Once Islam is in the majority, claim the land for Allah as the verse of the Sword command.

He who has ears, let him hear.

true - this info is what most people miss

there is also a command to lie and deceive infidels to advance the cause of Allah - so we never really can trust what is said or done because deception is a doctrine/command

 

[GodsGrace]

I wonder if the Muslims thought the same when the Pope started a holy war with them?
It's almost ironic in a since. Rome separated the church in 1054 and not soon after decides to take back the holy land and wage war and murder innocent Muslims just because of their religion. It wasn't the Muslims agitating the Christians, rather, it was Rome waging war and justifying it through their religion.

And make no mistake, Christians who lived in the same Muslim communities Rome was waging war on took up arms against Rome and died with their Muslim neighbors.

In modern vernacular, one could say Rome had become radicalized.

Here is the point, not all Christians supported Rome and some fought against Rome.

We see the same situation in modern times with Islam.

You really should go back and read Niblo posts as he has already given us this insight and he makes a similar case as you by distancing himself from the radicals. He has also quoted Muslim leaders supporting their local Christians and using the Quran to shame ISIS for their bloody tirade.

Rome declared a holy war?

Wasn't Rome trying to end the spread of Islam which had already overtaken southern Europe?

It was Islam that declared war on Christians.


The crusades were a series of religious wars sanctioned by the Latin Church in the medieval period. The most commonly known crusades are the campaigns in the eastern Mediterranean aimed at recovering the Holy Land from Muslim rule.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

 

[Walpole]

I may be wrong,,,I've never really thought about this but you bring up an interesting point...
Is a statement of faith the same as a creed?

A creed is typically professed.

A creed (also known as a confession, symbol, or statement of faith) is a statement of the shared beliefs of a religious community in the form of a fixed formula summarizing core tenets. ... One of the most widely used creeds in Christianity is the Nicene Creed, first formulated in AD 325 at the First Council of Nicaea
(from Wikipedia)

Each denomination does have a statement of faith....
And then most of them also accept the Nicene Creed.

Which again is illogical to me. Do you have a statement of faith and also profess a Mormon creed? Or, I see you have been interacting with a Muslim here, so how about professing a Muslim creed?

Do you see my confusion?

Do most protestants positively reject Catholicism, or just some of its doctrine?

Yes, of course they positively reject Catholicism. Otherwise, they would be cease to be Protestants and instead be Catholics. The original Protestant religions began by a positive rejection of Catholicism.

Why do you call Christianity another religion?
Or why do you call Catholicism another religion?

Both Catholicism and Protestantism are Christian.

Religion: a body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices

History records the names of every single Protestant progenitor. Each has their own particular set of beliefs and practices.

I think the fact that other denominations have held on to the Nicene Creed is a great sign of the catholic faith keeping our Christianity alive and safe throughout history.

It IS difficult to understand why you're so concerned with this fact.

Let me try to explain my confusion yet again...

The very Church described by the words of the Nicene Creed is the Church Protestants positively reject. The Nicene Creed was composed by Catholic bishops defending the faith of the Catholic Church. A few of the things the Catholic Church did at the same Council in which it composed it's creed is supposedly professed by Protestants include:

- Declared Christ as the same substance (ὁμοούσιον, consubstantialem) of the Father - contra sola Scriptura (Ecthesis of the Council) - contrary to sola Scriptura
- Supported the discipline of celibacy and clerical continence (Canon 3)
- Instructed on preserving valid Apostolic succession by requiring three bishops present for the consecration of subsequent bishops (Canon 4)
- Declaring Rome as the authority to grant jurisdiction to other Churches (Canon 6)
- Ruled on ordaining men to the priesthood (Canons 9 & 10)
- Instructed on giving viaticum to the dying (Canon 13)
- Instructed regarding catechumens (Canon 14)
- Affirmed the ordained episcopate, priesthood and deaconate (Canon 18)
- Explicitly referred to the Eucharist as the literal “Body of Christ" (Canon 18)
- Explicitly referred to the priests and bishops as they who "offer" the Eucharistic sacrifice. (Canon 18)

These are but a few examples, all of which are rejected by Protestants.

The very Creed composed by the bishops of the Church describes itself and professes a belief in it:

"...I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church."

The very Church described by the words of the Creed is the Church Protestants positively reject.

Do yo not think it illogical for a Catholic to profess a Mormon Creed (or statement of faith), despite the fact that the Catholic religion is incompatible with the Mormon religion? Do you not see my confusion? Protestants do not believe in the Church the Creed is describing. So, either Protestants have no idea what they are profession, or they are simply giving lip service to something they really do not believe.

I agree totally. One cannot arrive at the Trinitarian doctrine unless one studies the bible and for this theologians are necessary. I have often said this in fact,,.

Other doctrine cannot be understood using sola scripturea...
I know of two persons on this forum that cannot accept the standard understanding of the make-up of man: Body, Soul, and Spirit,,,because they do not see this plainly in scripture and because the word "heart" was used in the O.T. for different meanings. Sometimes it meant the soul, and sometimes it meant the spirit....

The two core dogmas upon which the Christian religion are based, the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union, are not defined and declared explicitly in the Scriptures. You cannot arrive at them via sola Scriptura. They took hundreds of years to develop before they were declared and defined by the Catholic Church at Nicea and Chalcedon.

I've always know that it came about gradually....
anyway, we have what we have and it doesn't really affect anyone except those that choose to go into the priesthood. (and Deaconate).j I don't believe this will change.

What we have is quite beautiful in my opinion and I too don't believe this will change. Rather, I think it is needed more in today's culture as a sign and reality of the Kingdom of God.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

true - this info is what most people miss

there is also a command to lie and deceive infidels to advance the cause of Allah - so we never really can trust what is said or done because deception is a doctrine/command

If is a bit of a tangent, but is anyone safe from people lying to advance their cause? My first thought when someone says they are Christian and own a business is if this is either a scam or just a way to get Christians to offer more trust or support. This is my fist thought because it's what I saw happen to my grandmother bring taken advantage of. Numerous times by Christians who weren't that Christian.

I think in Romans 3 Paul questioned whether or not a person can lose their place with God if they are unfaithful, and his answer is that we are all sinners, but God is true. Or at least in a sense, saying let all men be liars and God be true.

This applies to all of us. A seat of caution for ourselves, for our brothers and sisters in Jesus, as well as Muslims and anyone else. The fact that there is a verse in their scripture that makes it ok to decieve only makes it worse and adds more caution to them.

What do we do then, with eachother? What do we do with fellow Christians and nonchristians in all matters of life, whether it's business, personal, or otherwise? We don't shut down because everyone could be a liar. We still have great relationship with all kinds of people. What we do is probabley different depending on who you are. For me I think trust should be given out freely (in small doses) that way a person can prove whether they can be trusted more so, or we need to watch our back around this person or not.

I don't know if that makes sense or not, but for me based on the deeds I see and am aware of, I am a lot more cautious around a Muslim. I don't think they are all evil and out to spread a deseise of hate though. So even them that are taught to lie sometimes should be allowed to show if they can be trusted as much as anyone else is.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

To wondering and Walpole.

Sorry for pushing this conversation more off track, but I couldn't ignore a point you've both brought up regarding ceibacy. Do you both really think this is a good thing for church leaders to enforce on eachother? It actually sounds country to what the bible says regardless of the history building the tradition to it's current position. And it may be a source for so much of the sex issues in the church from priests not living up to their vows and creating the stereotype of bishops with side mistresses, to the current spotlight on pedophilia in the news. I think if priests and bishops were allowed to have a family after they chose to become a preist then all of this would either be resolved or greatly reduced.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

To Walpole specifically. I might have an answer to you about protastants willing to say a creed that isn't their own making. Some time ago protastents were't grouped together as they are now that get along with eachother. At least that's what I heard about American history in the US. People came to the US to flee persecution from the Catholic Church or from other denominations, but once they got here, they still didn't agree with other branches of protastentism. With other denominations.

Look at the history of how we came from that point to the place we are now and you might find your answer. It might be simular to my position as a Christian that identifies as a Nondemonatiinal Christian (more out of default then of active choice). I think of Catholics and Protestants as both being Christian. The more I learn the more I can say that I disagree with one point or agree with another in any denomination, but it doesn't take away fro the foundation of Jesus. Those that do step away from Jesus or from the bible I disagree that they are Christian at all. But for all that I know for most of the denominations this is not the case. Jesus is still the foundation, and the bible with or without other traditions and theology subliminting it is still the foundation of God's written word for us.

I hope that helps. If not, I doubt anything else will. You'll just have to come to term with disagreeing with any Christian who isn't Catholic. Hopefully without hating them in the process.

 

[GodsGrace]

To wondering and Walpole.

Sorry for pushing this conversation more off track, but I couldn't ignore a point you've both brought up regarding ceibacy. Do you both really think this is a good thing for church leaders to enforce on eachother? It actually sounds country to what the bible says regardless of the history building the tradition to it's current position. And it may be a source for so much of the sex issues in the church from priests not living up to their vows and creating the stereotype of bishops with side mistresses, to the current spotlight on pedophilia in the news. I think if priests and bishops were allowed to have a family after they chose to become a preist then all of this would either be resolved or greatly reduced.

I do NOT agree that a priest must choose between serving God or having a family.

I know a priest that was living with someone.
I know a priest that had to be transferred to a different parish because of talk.
I know a priest that, at this point in his life, is a little sorry he never got married and had children.

This is personal knowledge. To say nothing of all the talk that goes around and other things I know but which might be gossip..and there is plenty.

For whatever reason the cc has for requiring priests not to be married....God said it is not good for man to be alone.

I agree with God.

 

[Walpole]

I do NOT agree that a priest must choose between serving God or having a family.

I know a priest that was living with someone.
I know a priest that had to be transferred to a different parish because of talk.
I know a priest that, at this point in his life, is a little sorry he never got married and had children.

This is personal knowledge. To say nothing of all the talk that goes around and other things I know but which might be gossip..and there is plenty.

For whatever reason the cc has for requiring priests not to be married....God said it is not good for man to be alone.

I agree with God.

Why again are you professing belief in the Church you think disagrees with God?

You are making my point in real time.

 

[Walpole]

To Walpole specifically. I might have an answer to you about protastants willing to say a creed that isn't their own making. Some time ago protastents were't grouped together as they are now that get along with eachother. At least that's what I heard about American history in the US. People came to the US to flee persecution from the Catholic Church or from other denominations, but once they got here, they still didn't agree with other branches of protastentism. With other denominations.

Look at the history of how we came from that point to the place we are now and you might find your answer. It might be simular to my position as a Christian that identifies as a Nondemonatiinal Christian (more out of default then of active choice). I think of Catholics and Protestants as both being Christian. The more I learn the more I can say that I disagree with one point or agree with another in any denomination, but it doesn't take away fro the foundation of Jesus. Those that do step away from Jesus or from the bible I disagree that they are Christian at all. But for all that I know for most of the denominations this is not the case. Jesus is still the foundation, and the bible with or without other traditions and theology subliminting it is still the foundation of God's written word for us.

I hope that helps. If not, I doubt anything else will. You'll just have to come to term with disagreeing with any Christian who isn't Catholic. Hopefully without hating them in the process.

It doesn't help at all, but only adds further confusion. For example, Baptists do not profess the Lutheran confessions as articulated in the Book of Concord for a reason.

I'm just trying to understand why Protestants profess the Catholic confessions as articulated in the Nicene Creed when they don't actually believe what they are professing belief in (the Catholic Church).

 

[Walpole]

To wondering and Walpole.

Sorry for pushing this conversation more off track, but I couldn't ignore a point you've both brought up regarding ceibacy. Do you both really think this is a good thing for church leaders to enforce on eachother? It actually sounds country to what the bible says regardless of the history building the tradition to it's current position. And it may be a source for so much of the sex issues in the church from priests not living up to their vows and creating the stereotype of bishops with side mistresses, to the current spotlight on pedophilia in the news. I think if priests and bishops were allowed to have a family after they chose to become a preist then all of this would either be resolved or greatly reduced.

Celibacy is the standard, as exemplified by Christ and as stated by St. Paul, who like Christ was also celibate.

“Now I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with sexual desire.“ (1 Cor 7:8-9)

Celibacy is not the cause of the pedophilia scandal; homosexuals are.

---> Clergy Sex Abuse Report

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

To Walpole.

Thankyou fir the link connecting homosexuality to the issue. I read the abstract and will try to read the rest of the report to see if I agree with the conclusions. None the less it is a consideration that has information I wouldn't have access to before, so I'll have to consider it.

On the matter of celibacy, I disagree with your conclusions entirely. Paul said that it would be better to remain unmarried if a person was able to, but not to try if they couldn't and would burn with lust.

This isn't a condition to becoming a deacon, an elder, or a priest. It is however the opposite to the conditions Paul gave for making a person an elder of a church. If I remember right one of the conditions Paul wrote to Timothy or to Titus about, was that an elder had to have a family in good order to judge if he could manage The church.

Jesus seems to say something along the same lines when talking about marriage to the desciples. After hearing what He taught about adultry, the disciples concluded that it was better to not marry at all. Jesus replied that only those God has made that way can follow that path but it's not mandated is is not a rule to follow.

Bibically speaking, the rule to forbid marriage to priests doesn't exist, and is actually unbiblical.

 

[Niblo]

there is also a command to lie and deceive infidels to advance the cause of Allah - so we never really can trust what is said or done because deception is a doctrine/command

Proof?

 

[Christ_empowered]

personally...i think the core causes of terrorism are economic and social, not religious. radicalized versions of -any- faith tend to pop up when there are lots of angry, poor, disenfranchised and frustrated people. so...id say...

don't look to most religious texts for an explanation...look to the society, the economy, the political situation, too.

 

[Anto9us2]

Being "the husband of one wife" would preclude certain church officials from being celibate.

 

[GodsGrace]

Why again are you professing belief in the Church you think disagrees with God?

You are making my point in real time.

Hi W,
I don't know what you mean.
I believe in the Catholic church...
I believe it was the first and original church.
I believe it has many wonderful teachings.
And I believe it holds the truth of scripture.
Of scripture.
Then it went off and made up some of its own beliefs...
I can see how some seem to be biblical, but I would not agree that they are.

There is no real reason why a priest cannot be married.
This was a bad idea for which we are now paying the price.

I say we, because I am currently in the cc....I study there and go to Mass there,,,WHEN I go, which is not often these days.

I have nothing against this church and have already said that I love some of its teachings.

 

[Christ_empowered]

ive been (re)considering the rcc, too. i dunno. perfect? no. the fullest, most genuine expression of The Good News available to...me? probably. to most people? that, I don't know.

i kinda think the 19th century Quakers were fairly awesome, but...yeah...about that...where are they now?

i dont know if the celibacy deal is what's led to a lot of the probs in the rcc. this is going to sound...self-loathing, i guess is the current pop psych term...coming from a recovering gay dude....

i think letting men who are homosexual and/or have deeply rooted, strong homosexual tendencies become priests--not just here and there, but apparently lots of them, all over-has been a bad thing for the rcc. not that gay=pedophile, but...

again, im glad I'm a Christian, I'm glad this is a Christian site....the gay community covers up a lot of illegal and barely legal stuff. somehow, i was spared a lot of it, probably because i lived in a bubble and all, but...

there's lots of exploitation, running along the lines of power (age, social class, overall clout), more so in ongoing relationships than in (the far more common) stuff. anyway...

there's also the issue of pride...oh, and self-love and rebellion...that seems to come with the 'queer sensibility.' i dunno what to make of it, honestly. im nearly 7 years into a genuine walk with The Lord, and I think...

I'm personally, just now getting down to the business of some much needed Christian character development and overall maturation. i dont hang out with any gay dudes, now, but...

-sigh- i dont think homosexual men should lead churches or be in positions of authority over congregants. its not just the sex scandals, either. its...ill advised, I think. and i think that was once rcc policy, right? or not?