Calvinism and the Nicene Creed

[Walpole]

Of course there are plenty of things we disagree with the Roman Catholic church about, but that does not mean we should completely reject everything. After all, where do you think we got most of our theology in the first place. Even though Martin Luther broke away from the RC because of some rather profound doctrinal issues, he still clung to many truths that even the RC believes in.

Ok, so by your logic, do you use Mormon or Islamic creeds or statements of faith because there are some things within those religions that you agree with?

 

[Walpole]

That's not what it sounds like. The reasons are given. Basically the same reasons reworded a few different ways. As it reads it sounds like what you're asking is why weren't the creeds rejected when a person is not Catholic themselves. The reasons for that are likely the same or very simular to the ones for why they accept and believe the words in those creeds. You don't have to like it, or even agree with it, but the reasons are the same as what has already been explained.

I'll ask you the same thing I asked another poster. By this logic, do you use Mormon or Islamic creeds or statements of faith?

Why or why not?

Nope. Sorry but your wrong. When Jesus came He scolded and critized the religous leaders in Israel. They rejected Jesus, as well as practiced continued hypocracy, then instead of seeing their error, and repenting, they got angry at Jesus's teachings and direct critisms, so they planed on how to kill Him. Later Jesus showed Himself to John in a vision and told him to record what John say and heard. The first few chapters of this was Jesus dictating a message to the churches in different cities. Some with a harsh warning that if they did not correct their error then Jesus would remove them from their place among the churches (among the lamp stands).

Elsewhere Jesus said that no one comes to the Father except therother Jesus, and they don't come to Jesus unless the Father draws them to Him. Jesus also said that without God's help it would be impossible for us to remain in Him. And lastly Jesus warned that not everyone who calls Him "Lord" is really saved.

These are trying issues to sort through, but in the end it comes to this. We can strive to be Christian, but without God's help we will fail. (Thank God for His help). And we can try to define what it means to be a Christian but God will be the ultimate judge. And many who are lost or who are saved will suprise us.

Therefore while it is good for us to be in unity in our faith and be strengthened by our community among eachother, we should not forget Jesus's words to not call anyone teacher, because we all have one teacher. Jesus.

What am I wrong about?

 

[Knotical]

Ok, so by your logic, do you use Mormon or Islamic creeds or statements of faith because there are some things within those religions that you agree with?

Actually, quite a ridiculous question. Islam was started by some guy who bastardized the first 5 books of the bible. Has nothing to do with the Catholic church.

Mormonism was an offshoot of protestantism which started during one of the great awakenings of the 1800s.

So, neither example follows my logic at all.

Protestants were part of the Catholic church up until the late 1400s, early 1500s. So it makes complete sense that we still use much of what was taught by the Catholic church up to that point. And still do. Just because we did not agree with some of what the Catholic church taught doesn't mean all of it was wrong.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

I'll ask you the same thing I asked another poster. By this logic, do you use Mormon or Islamic creeds or statements of faith?

Why or why not?

I don't know any creeds from Mormonism or Islam. So I don't know if I would agree with any of their reasoning. But I do know that there are several rationelles that come from secular philosophies and nonchristian religions that I'm sure I agree with. No examples that I can think of now, but I know I've run into them a few times.

What am I wrong about?

You said that what defines a Christian is their baptism, and what defines what it means to be a Christian is the church. In that I think you're wrong. What it comes down to is God for both. My reasoning is the first few chapters of the book Revelation. In it Jesus gives several rebukes to the churches in different cities, and warns them if they do not change Jesus will remove them from their standing as part of the church.

Thus making it not the church but God who determines who is Christian and what it means to be one.

 

[atpollard]

The context is the point, as once again, the Nicene Creed was composed by Catholic bishops defending the faith of the Catholic Church. In other words, the creed was composed in the context of the Church's understanding of herself.

Are we not of the same “church” as the Apostle Paul and the Apostle John and the people described in Acts and the letters to Corinth and Ephesus and Rome?

The Protestant Reformation was an effort to REFORM the one true church (the Body of Christ) and to PROTEST the human traditions that had corrupted it during the intervening centuries. The 16th Century Particular (Reformed) Baptists were not creating a NEW church, they were returning to the scriptural roots of a very old church and abandoning layers of human apostasy.

What in the Nicene Creed, in your opinion, contradicts the teaching of scripture? I find nothing in it that I could not defend from the word of God, so I freely embrace it as a statement of belief compatible with the Word of God ... the only true measure for the One True Church (the Body of Christ).

 

[Walpole]

Actually, quite a ridiculous question. Islam was started by some guy who bastardized the first 5 books of the bible. Has nothing to do with the Catholic church.

Not so, since Islam borrowed from both Judaism and Christianity.

There is a reason you wouldn't use one of their creeds or statements of faith. I'm just waiting for you to admit it.

Mormonism was an offshoot of protestantism which started during one of the great awakenings of the 1800s.

So, neither example follows my logic at all.

To the contrary, since you previously stated your use for using a Catholic creed was:

"Of course there are plenty of things we disagree with the Roman Catholic church about, but that does not mean we should completely reject everything." - You

Surely you don't completely reject everything about Islam and Mormonism? So again, why don't you use their creeds or statements of faith?

Protestants were part of the Catholic church up until the late 1400s, early 1500s. So it makes complete sense that we still use much of what was taught by the Catholic church up to that point. And still do. Just because we did not agree with some of what the Catholic church taught doesn't mean all of it was wrong.

Protestants were not a subset / rite / or church of THE Church. Rather, they broke away from the Church to form their various new sects and religions. And Protestants don't accept what was taught by the Church until the 16th century. Once again, the very council we are discussing, that of Nicea which composed the Nicene Creed, contains teachings Protestants completely oppose and positively reject. For example, the priesthood, the authority of Rome over all other churches, Apostolic succession via the episcopacy, the Eucharist, priestly celibacy, etc. These things are all defended and taught at Nicea, which gave the Catholic world the Nicene Creed.

So again, help me understand the logic in using the creed of a Church which you reject.

 

[Walpole]

Are we not of the same “church” as the Apostle Paul and the Apostle John and the people described in Acts and the letters to Corinth and Ephesus and Rome?

No, you are not. There is no history of Protestant beliefs / churches in Corinth, Ephesus or Rome in antiquity. If I wanted to get on a plane and visit a Protestant church in Corinth from the fourth century, where would I go? How about Ephesus? Or Rome?

I can provide the names of Catholic bishops, writings, Councils, archaeological sites, saints, martyrs, liturgical prayers, Scriptures, psalters, tombs, etc. from each century beginning with the first to the present in Corinth, Ephesus and Rome. The same cannot be said for Protestantism.

The Protestant Reformation was an effort to REFORM the one true church (the Body of Christ) and to PROTEST the human traditions that had corrupted it during the intervening centuries. The 16th Century Particular (Reformed) Baptists were not creating a NEW church, they were returning to the scriptural roots of a very old church and abandoning layers of human apostasy.

Most progenitors of the various Protestant religions sought not reform, but something new. They invented and formed new theologies. They did not reform the Church, but rather broke and away and formed something new.

What in the Nicene Creed, in your opinion, contradicts the teaching of scripture? I find nothing in it that I could not defend from the word of God, so I freely embrace it as a statement of belief compatible with the Word of God ... the only true measure for the One True Church (the Body of Christ).

I am not arguing this, as I believe everything in the Nicene Creed, as with all doctrines fo the faith, can be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures. This is the case with the Creed's most important statement, that of Christ being homoousios with the Father. This is not found in the Word of God explicitly, but it is there, implicitly. Interestingly, the Arians were sola Scriptura-adherents and opposed the Catholics at Nicea on the grounds that the dogma of the Trinity was not found in Scripture.

 

[Walpole]

I don't know any creeds from Mormonism or Islam. So I don't know if I would agree with any of their reasoning. But I do know that there are several rationelles that come from secular philosophies and nonchristian religions that I'm sure I agree with. No examples that I can think of now, but I know I've run into them a few times.

You wouldn't use a creed from Mormons or Islam because you reject those religions. Hence I am baffled why you would use a creed from a Church you reject.

You said that what defines a Christian is their baptism, and what defines what it means to be a Christian is the church. In that I think you're wrong. What it comes down to is God for both. My reasoning is the first few chapters of the book Revelation. In it Jesus gives several rebukes to the churches in different cities, and warns them if they do not change Jesus will remove them from their standing as part of the church.

Thus making it not the church but God who determines who is Christian and what it means to be one.

Yes, I said what defines a Christian is their baptism, as Scripture states.

I said what defines what is or is not the Christian faith is the Church, as Scripture states.

The Church is Christ's instrument, it is an extension of the incarnation.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

You wouldn't use a creed from Mormons or Islam because you reject those religions. Hence I am baffled why you would use a creed from a Church you reject.

To be fair, I wish I had the same confidence you do in my rejecting creeds from Islam. In the absence of any knowledge of those creeds my ignorance is a shield from agreeing to either Mormon or Islamic creeds.

Not trying to fight on that point, just being honest about it. As for the Nicea creed. I don't think I can agree to it fully, because I'm not sure on the concept of the Trinity. At least not fully. On everything else it says, based on what it says, yes I would agree with it being true.

Yes, I said what defines a Christian is their baptism, as Scripture states.

I said what defines what is or is not the Christian faith is the Church, as Scripture states.

The Church is Christ's instrument, it is an extension of the incarnation.

Fair enough. The only two differences I'd insert is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, not just water baptism. And that the church is the body of believers, not the denominations.

With that in mind then yes the church is an extension of Jesus.

The question from there is always (at least for me) "Am I a Christian? Are you a Christian?" One day we can meet and find out when Jesus separates the sheep from the goats. The righteous from the wicked. Until then all I can offer is hope. Some Christians surprise you because they fall away. Others surprise you because where they came from and they are now saved. We have to strive for God, follow Jesus, and hope they will hold onto us even through our weaknesses. That extends to anyone who has faith in Jesus.

 

[atpollard]

I can provide the names of Catholic bishops, writings, Councils, archaeological sites, saints, martyrs, liturgical prayers, Scriptures, psalters, tombs, etc. from each century beginning with the first to the present in Corinth, Ephesus and Rome. The same cannot be said for Protestantism.

So THAT is what this is all about. You are a Papist with a chip on his shoulder. Frankly, the Bishops of the 4th Century Church would have burned you as a heretic for even suggesting Mary was co-equal with God in human redemption (yet it is only a matter of time before the “Co-redemptrix” movement gains the blessing of Rome) and they would don sackcloth and ashes to learn that their church was protecting sexual deviants at the expense of the children they victimized.

Those who knew the Apostles would have given more credence to the letters they had from those Apostles and less emphasis to the evolving opinions of fallen men. Frankly, it should be pointed out that most of what Martin Luther protested was so contra-scriptural (like selling forgiveness) that even the church in Rome eventually reformed itself. The sticking point was the unwillingness of the Roman Clergy to abdicate any temporal power back to the Body of Christ as Scripture demands. You reject the notion that the leaders should be the servants of all and that the word of God is for all, and you make the congregation the servants of the clergy and the clergy the keepers of the secret knowledge. My parents grew up in a Catholic Church where mass was in Latin ... a language no one spoke ... so it wasn’t just back in the Middle Ages when the Church in Rome sought to keep the peasants in fear and ignorance.

 

[atpollard]

They did not reform the Church, but rather broke and away and formed something new.

It was probably a little hard for Luther to reform the church when he accepted their invitation to plead his case and the Church in Rome used it as an opportunity to set a trap and try to murder him. Being dead tends to dampen discussions on needed reforms.

 

[Walpole]

So THAT is what this is all about. You are a Papist with a chip on his shoulder.

No, what this is ALL ABOUT is trying to understand the logic behind a group of people professing the creed of a Church they reject. Thus far, no one has made a logical argument or rationalization for it.

Frankly, the Bishops of the 4th Century Church would have burned you as a heretic for even suggesting Mary was co-equal with God in human redemption (yet it is only a matter of time before the “Co-redemptrix” movement gains the blessing of Rome) and they would don sackcloth and ashes to learn that their church was protecting sexual deviants at the expense of the children they victimized.

First of all, this is a non-sequitur, as no one has ever taught Mary was co-equal with God; it is an ontological impossibility. (Philosophy 101: A creature cannot be equal to its Creator.) The early Church did, however, develop and declare two important Marian dogmas: That she is the Theotokos (in 431) and that she is Aeirparthenos (in 553).

As for sexual deviants in the clergy, this problem dates back to the genesis of the Church. We have multiple examples in Scripture, such as 1 Cor 5:1; 2 Cor 12:21, as well as early Church documents such as the Didache (5), councils and synods such as Elvira (canons 7, 15).

Sexual sins are as old as man himself, and those members of the Church are not immune to sin.

Those who knew the Apostles would have given more credence to the letters they had from those Apostles and less emphasis to the evolving opinions of fallen men. Frankly, it should be pointed out that most of what Martin Luther protested was so contra-scriptural (like selling forgiveness) that even the church in Rome eventually reformed itself. The sticking point was the unwillingness of the Roman Clergy to abdicate any temporal power back to the Body of Christ as Scripture demands. You reject the notion that the leaders should be the servants of all and that the word of God is for all, and you make the congregation the servants of the clergy and the clergy the keepers of the secret knowledge. My parents grew up in a Catholic Church where mass was in Latin ... a language no one spoke ... so it wasn’t just back in the Middle Ages when the Church in Rome sought to keep the peasants in fear and ignorance.

"Opinions of fallen men" is what determined what is or is not in your Bible.

As for Luther, many of his initial complaints of abuses were in fact corrected (at Trent). However, Luther was not interested in reforming the church, but rather forming his own religion. He would later admit at the end of his life he did not even really know what an indulgence was. (cf. Hans Worsts, 1541). They were but a convenient catalyst to begin his revolt.

 

[Walpole]

It was probably a little hard for Luther to reform the church when he accepted their invitation to plead his case and the Church in Rome used it as an opportunity to set a trap and try to murder him. Being dead tends to dampen discussions on needed reforms.

You can't reform the Church by destroying it's faith and rebuilding it with something completely new and novel. Luther was the progressive of his time. His doctrines (sola Scriptura and sola fide) were completely novel. As the Protestant theologian Alister McGrath rightly admits, Luther introduced a "theological novum" into Christianity.

 

[GodsGrace]

You wouldn't use a creed from Mormons or Islam because you reject those religions. Hence I am baffled why you would use a creed from a Church you reject.


Yes, I said what defines a Christian is their baptism, as Scripture states.

I said what defines what is or is not the Christian faith is the Church, as Scripture states.

The Church is Christ's instrument, it is an extension of the incarnation.

Hi Walpole,,,
You're saying that baptism makes one a Christian?
Are you also saying that baptism saves a person?

 

[GodsGrace]

No, what this is ALL ABOUT is trying to understand the logic behind a group of people professing the creed of a Church they reject. Thus far, no one has made a logical argument or rationalization for it.



First of all, this is a non-sequitur, as no one has ever taught Mary was co-equal with God; it is an ontological impossibility. (Philosophy 101: A creature cannot be equal to its Creator.) The early Church did, however, develop and declare two important Marian dogmas: That she is the Theotokos (in 431) and that she is Aeirparthenos (in 553).

As for sexual deviants in the clergy, this problem dates back to the genesis of the Church. We have multiple examples in Scripture, such as 1 Cor 5:1; 2 Cor 12:21, as well as early Church documents such as the Didache (5), councils and synods such as Elvira (canons 7, 15).

Sexual sins are as old as man himself, and those members of the Church are not immune to sin.


"Opinions of fallen men" is what determined what is or is not in your Bible.

As for Luther, many of his initial complaints of abuses were in fact corrected (at Trent). However, Luther was not interested in reforming the church, but rather forming his own religion. He would later admit at the end of his life he did not even really know what an indulgence was. (cf. Hans Worsts, 1541). They were but a convenient catalyst to begin his revolt.

If I remember correctly, Luther was rejected by the Catholic Church....he was removed from that church; ex-communicated..it was not HE that wanted to leave Catholicism.

I agree with everything else you've said except for the comments on Mary...I respect her and love her...but the CC is getting very close to declaring her a co-redemptrix.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

No, what this is ALL ABOUT is trying to understand the logic behind a group of people professing the creed of a Church they reject. Thus far, no one has made a logical argument or rationalization for it.

atpollard explained it very well on the first post. It has to do with agreeing with what the creed says, not where the creed came from. That is the reasoning. There needs no other explaination.

Nicene Creed:
We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

• I believe in one God.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made.

• I believe Jesus is God incarnate, second person of the Triune Godhead.

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.

• I believe in the incarnation and Virgin Birth.

He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.

• I believe in the crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again with glory
to judge the living and the dead.
His kingdom will never end.

• I believe in the ascension, the second coming and the eternal kingdom of Christ.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life.
He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
He spoke through the prophets.

• I believe in the Holy Spirit as the third person of the Triune Godhead.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.

• I believe the church founded by Christ is HOLY. I believe that the church founded by Christ is UNIVERSAL (catholic) and contains all of the children of God from all times and all denominations united by the blood of Christ. I believe that the church founded by Christ is APOSTOLIC ... built upon the teachings of the apostles appointed by Christ Himself and recorded in our Holy Bible.

We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

• I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. As a Reformed Baptist, I believe that it is the baptism performed by the Holy Spirit that removes sins, and the immersion in water performed by human hands is an outward expression of affirmation for an inner change already wrought by God.

We look forward to the resurrection of the dead,
and to life in the world to come. Amen.

• I believe in the literal resurrection of the dead and that God will make good on his promise of eternal life for His sheep in Heaven.

So what part of the Nicene Creed did you find incompatible with Calvinism:

1. (T) Man is totally unable to save himself
2. (U) God chooses men to be saved based on no innate merit in those chosen.
3. (L) Christ’s death on the cross removed only the sins of those that God had chosen (the Elect) to be saved and His blood completely and effectively removed all of their sins.
4. (I) God irresistibly draws to Christ those that God has chosen for salvation.
5. (P) God is able to finish what he starts and those “predestined” will ultimately be “glorified”.

Look, I get it if your Roman Catholic and it's insulting that someone outside of that denomination uses a creed that is in your church group. I feel simularily sometimes when an atheist quotes the bible for some of the reasoning or wisdom they agree with while at the same time rejecting the bible as a whole, or rejecting Christianity and God. It's like they are insulting the wisdom in the bible because they accept one thing and despise the rest.

If that is where you're coming from then I get it. (Is that where you're coming from)? But wouldn't it be better if fellow Christians believed most of the same things you do, such as a creed that they agree with? That would be at least a starting point to reach them and bring them into the fold.

For those who are Christian the Nicean Creed sums up many points of their faith. It's not just for the Catholic Church if most or all of the other denominations agree to the same things.

 

[Walpole]

If I remember correctly, Luther was rejected by the Catholic Church....he was removed from that church; ex-communicated..it was not HE that wanted to leave Catholicism.

Luther's teachings were rejected, as they were novel and erroneous. He rejected the Church and her teachings in favor of his own new doctrines and theology.

I don't want this to turn into a thread on Luther, but just to tie it back to the OP, Luther (and his progeny) will tell you they accept the Nicene Creed and as many as seven of the fist Councils of the Catholic Church. Yet I have demonstrated this is not true, as even the very first Council, that of Nicea, taught things all rejected by Protestants, such as the priesthood, celibacy, Apostolic succession via the episcopacy, the Eucharistic sacrifice, etc.

I agree with everything else you've said except for the comments on Mary...I respect her and love her...but the CC is getting very close to declaring her a co-redemptrix.

The CC is nowhere near close to declaring Mary as the co-redemptrix. Here is Pope Benedict...

"I do not think there will be any compliance with this demand [to declare Mary as the Co-redemptrix], which in the meantime is being supported several million people, within the foreseeable future. The response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is, broadly that what is signified by this already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula 'Co-redemptrix' departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings.

"What is true here? Well, it is true that Christ does not remain outside us or to one side of us, but builds a profound and new community with us. Everything that is his becomes ours, and everything that is ours he has taken upon himself, so that it become his: this great exchange is the actual content of redemption, the removal of limitations from our self and its extension into the community with God. Because Mary is the prototype of the Church as such and is, so to say, the Church in person, this being 'with' is realized in her in exemplary fashion. But this 'with' must not lead us to forget the 'first' of Christ. Everything comes from him as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary too, is everything that she is through him.

"The word 'Co-redemptrix' would obscure this origin. A correct intention is being expressed in the wrong way. For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language."

- Peter Seewald, God and the World, pg. 306

 

[GodsGrace]

atpollard explained it very well on the first post. It has to do with agreeing with what the creed says, not where the creed came from. That is the reasoning. There needs no other explaination.




Look, I get it if your Roman Catholic and it's insulting that someone outside of that denomination uses a creed that is in your church group. I feel simularily sometimes when an atheist quotes the bible for some of the reasoning or wisdom they agree with while at the same time rejecting the bible as a whole, or rejecting Christianity and God. It's like they are insulting the wisdom in the bible because they accept one thing and despise the rest.

If that is where you're coming from then I get it. (Is that where you're coming from)? But wouldn't it be better if fellow Christians believed most of the same things you do, such as a creed that they agree with? That would be at least a starting point to reach them and bring them into the fold.

For those who are Christian the Nicean Creed sums up many points of their faith. It's not just for the Catholic Church if most or all of the other denominations agree to the same things.

NNS,
When Luther left the Catholic Church, or I could say when the church banned him due to not being willing to comply with his demands....
Luther left because of incorrect teachings in the CC...
NOT because he didn't agree with the creed.

You've stated enough as a reason and not more should be required.

Luther didn't abandon the cc because he didn't agree with the Creed, but mostly because he felt indugences and forgiveness should not be sold.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

On the other hand, Walpole, maybe it's your turn to defend your position. Do you agree with the points in the Nicean Creed? If so, then there is no issue here. If not, then what parts of the creed do you disagree with?

This is a chance to defend yourself for this much arguing before the thread is closed because of the growing arguments leading nowhere. (Not sure if this thread will close or not, but I've seen this kind of thing close after a while of bickering and arguing). (atpollard this comment is for you too. This thread might close because of the growing bitterness and bickering between you two).

 

[Walpole]

Hi Walpole,,,
You're saying that baptism makes one a Christian?

Yes.

"For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slavesor free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit." - 1 Cor 12:13

"...having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead." - Col 2:12

Are you also saying that baptism saves a person?

Yes.

"...because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." - 1 Peter 3:20-21


(Since Luther has been introduced, he also taught baptism saves.)