The Nicene Creed

[Free]

Of course His Word is Spirit:
John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

God is a Spirit and the Word was God. Logically, it follows that His Word is Spirit. Moreover, His Word is the Light and Life of men and only the Spirit can give Life. Again therefore, His Word is Spirit since it is Life.

No, it doesn't logically follow since you are taking John 1:1 out of context. Look at verse 14 where the Word became flesh. The Word is the God-man Jesus, not a spirit.

I don't even see what this has to do with the discussion.

 

[childeye]

No, it doesn't logically follow since you are taking John 1:1 out of context. Look at verse 14 where the Word became flesh. The Word is the God-man Jesus, not a spirit.

But even a man is a spirit, housed in the soul, housed in the flesh. Moreover, the Spirit of the man Jesus proceeded from the Father with all purity, since Jesus is His son and without sin. There would be no Jesus the God-man without the Spirit of God the Father. The fact that the Word became flesh does not preclude the Word of God from being Spirit, particularly since the Spirit is Life, just as the Word is Life. The Word of God is certainly not dead.

I don't even see what this has to do with the discussion.

I feel it is relevant as to pursuing whether the Nicene Creed is the product of the prompting of the Holy Spirit, or was formulated and voted upon by men at the prompting of a politician. Have you never wondered this?

 

[Free]

I feel it is relevant as to pursuing whether the Nicene Creed is the product of the prompting of the Holy Spirit, or was formulated and voted upon by men at the prompting of a politician. Have you never wondered this?

If it's summary statements of what the Bible says--if it's biblically true in what it says--does it actually matter?

 

[childeye]

If it's summary statements of what the Bible says--if it's biblically true in what it says--does it actually matter?

Yes, but that is precisely the point I am addressing. Whether it's biblically true is the discussion at the outset of the op. I am addressing the semantic confusion of what "begotten not made" is meant to imply. History suggests it was placed there as an attempt to settle a matter of dispute as to the eternal existence of the Word being confused with the beginning existence of the Word made flesh. I contend that the division was based on semantic confusion, whereby doctrinal differences were raised by misinterpretations of writings and teachings by certain schools of thought at that time. Essentially, I am saying that there were no actual disagreements to be rectified other than arbitrary presumptive interpretations of subjective terms.

 

[jocor]

Actually, the NT is clear that the Son has always existed, so taking in the larger context of Scripture, it is technically not incorrect to say that he was begotten before all worlds. And I do not think you have made a strong case otherwise. You are reading the error of Christ's non-preexistence into the contexts of the word's usage, hence you are then concluding that it does not refer to any event prior to Creation.

My views on the preexistence issue have not influenced my view of "begotten...before all worlds". What does influence that view is the misuse of γεννηθέντα which refers to a physical or spiritual conception or birth. There is absolutely no Scriptural or lexical grounds that I am aware of to force that word to mean something prior to creation. I await that evidence to disprove my view.

Here are more verses that pertain to the Son's birth that use a form of gennao. Check them in the Greek text:
Mt 1:16; Mt 2:4; Luke 1:35; Jn 18:37

So when the creed uses γεννηθέντα, but adds the words "before all worlds" after it, it does so in error because the Son was NOT born or conceived before creation.

Of course, even if we grant you this argument, we could just as well argue that since the Bible as a whole clearly shows the eternal preexistence of Christ, then the word in question merely applies to his incarnation and need not mean that that was the point in time he came into existence.

I agree. I have repeatedly said I am NOT coming against the Christian belief that the Son is eternal, but against the creed itself, being a document that is not infallible and was not inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is a document created by men that contains mistakes.

 

[Free]

Yes, but that is precisely the point I am addressing. Whether it's biblically true is the discussion at the outset of the op.

My question was rhetorical. The Creed is true as it does contain biblical doctrine, so what would it matter if it was created at the prompting of the Spirit or some politician? How would you even know whether or not the politician was being used by the Spirit to create it? My point is that it doesn't matter either way precisely because it contains biblical truth.

I am addressing the semantic confusion of what "begotten not made" is meant to imply. History suggests it was placed there as an attempt to settle a matter of dispute as to the eternal existence of the Word being confused with the beginning existence of the Word made flesh.

Or it was placed there because that it what the Bible teaches.

 

[childeye]

My views on the preexistence issue have not influenced my view of "begotten...before all worlds". What does influence that view is the misuse of γεννηθέντα which refers to a physical or spiritual conception or birth. There is absolutely no Scriptural or lexical grounds that I am aware of to force that word to mean something prior to creation. I await that evidence to disprove my view.

Here are more verses that pertain to the Son's birth that use a form of gennao. Check them in the Greek text:
Mt 1:16; Mt 2:4; Luke 1:35; Jn 18:37

So when the creed uses γεννηθέντα, but adds the words "before all worlds" after it, it does so in error because the Son was NOT born or conceived before creation.


I agree. I have repeatedly said I am NOT coming against the Christian belief that the Son is eternal, but against the creed itself, being a document that is not infallible and was not inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is a document created by men that contains mistakes.

I believe it is an issue of semantic confusion. Is it possible that a temporal existence can exist as an eternal testimony, and therefore it is also eternal?

 

[Free]

My views on the preexistence issue have not influenced my view of "begotten...before all worlds". What does influence that view is the misuse of γεννηθέντα which refers to a physical or spiritual conception or birth. There is absolutely no Scriptural or lexical grounds that I am aware of to force that word to mean something prior to creation. I await that evidence to disprove my view.

Here are more verses that pertain to the Son's birth that use a form of gennao. Check them in the Greek text:
Mt 1:16; Mt 2:4; Luke 1:35; Jn 18:37

The word means what it does and just because it may not be used in the Bible to refer to a pre-creation event, does not mean that it cannot be used in such a way.

So when the creed uses γεννηθέντα, but adds the words "before all worlds" after it, it does so in error because the Son was NOT born or conceived before creation.

Being God in nature, the Son has always existed--this the NT makes clear--so it is technically not in error.

 

[childeye]

My question was rhetorical. The Creed is true as it does contain biblical doctrine, so what would it matter if it was created at the prompting of the Spirit or some politician?

Well consider that Satan quotes scripture yet he is a liar. Consider what is meant by the Letter kills but the Spirit gives life. I would submit that just because something is scripturally accurate doesn't make it Spiritually True. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, and anything pertaining to God that is not prompted by Him,including interpretation of scripture, is vanity.

How would you even know whether or not the politician was being used by the Spirit to create it?

I see two answers here. 1) I can tell because if the reasoning ends in hypocrisy, then it is not the Holy Spirit. 2) It is possible that God allows vanity to manifest His Glory. In this case it could be said that God uses a politicians hypocrisy to accomplish his own ends.

My point is that it doesn't matter either way precisely because it contains biblical truth.

My point is that proper interpretation is required so as to not mis-apply scripture and discern biblical Truth.

Or it was placed there because that it what the Bible teaches.

As a matter of interpretation, it depends on how one applies the terms 'begotten' and 'made'. For example, the KJV says the Word was 'made' flesh, while it also says Jesus is the only 'begotten' of the Father. However, scripture never says he was "begotten not made" . Hence the Creed is not scripturally accurate, but is expressing an aversion to the use of the term 'made' that is semantically driven. Scripture has no such aversion.

 

[JLB]

My views on the preexistence issue have not influenced my view of "begotten...before all worlds". What does influence that view is the misuse of γεννηθέντα which refers to a physical or spiritual conception or birth. There is absolutely no Scriptural or lexical grounds that I am aware of to force that word to mean something prior to creation. I await that evidence to disprove my view.

Here is your evidence from the scriptures again.

In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. 1 John 4:9

God sent His only begotten Son into the world.

The Son was not in the world, but was sent into the world.

If God sent an angel into the world, to say, deliver a message to His prophet Daniel, then the angel would come from where God is, and being sent, the angel would go to where Daniel was.

The Son of God was with the Father where He was [Above, in Heaven], and was sent into the world [Below, to earth], to be born of a virgin and become the Son of Man [Adam].

And He said to them, “You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. John 8:23

The Son of God came from Heven to earth, having been begotten of the Father before all things.

Since He was begotten before all things, we can safely say He is before all things, which is exactly the point Paul makes in His letter to the Colossians.

And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. Colossians 1:17

It is His word that upholds all of creation.

who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, Hebrews 1:3



JLB

 

[jocor]

I believe it is an issue of semantic confusion. Is it possible that a temporal existence can exist as an eternal testimony, and therefore it is also eternal?

The "semantic confusion" is caused by the creed authors adding their own words, "before all worlds", to the Scriptural words, "begotten of the Father". An "eternal existence" cannot be read into γεννηθέντα.

 

[jocor]

The word means what it does and just because it may not be used in the Bible to refer to a pre-creation event, does not mean that it cannot be used in such a way.

I agree. So show me evidence outside of Scripture where it was used that way.

Being God in nature, the Son has always existed--this the NT makes clear--so it is technically not in error.

Technically, it is error unless you want to read your own meaning into the word.

 

[childeye]

The "semantic confusion" is caused by the creed authors adding their own words, "before all worlds", to the Scriptural words, "begotten of the Father". An "eternal existence" cannot be read into γεννηθέντα.

I believe "before all worlds" was added to clarify any misconception that the Word does not have his Eternal existence in the expressed nature of God. However, when the Name of Jesus is used, it generally means the man who had the nature of God because he was/is, the Word made flesh. So when asked if Jesus had a beginning, it could both be said that he did, and yet also said that he didn't, hence semantic confusion.

 

[jocor]

I believe "before all worlds" was added to clarify any misconception that the Word does not have his Eternal existence in the expressed nature of God.

If that was their intent, they could have said, "begotten of the Father and eternally existent" or something similar. Instead, they erroneously linked their belief that he preexisted to a word that only refers to his coming into existence as a man.

 

[childeye]

If that was their intent, they could have said, "begotten of the Father and eternally existent" or something similar. Instead, they erroneously linked their belief that he preexisted to a word that only refers to his coming into existence as a man.

It is difficult to articulate Eternal concepts with temporal terms. I'm sure there are probably better ways to say it, and I agree that 'begotten' in scripture is intended to describe his coming into existence in some aspect.

But I'm more convinced than not, that begotten was used in the Creed, to address a contentious accusation of heresy at the time. It is sometimes called the Arius controversy. The specifics of the dispute are told differently according to which side is doing the telling. But it was essentially over whether Jesus was Eternal or had a beginning. Hence they say he was begotten not made, so as to emphasize that Jesus was always Eternal and not a temporal or created being like other men. Most of Arius' writings were burned or destroyed, but some records do exist describing the accusations of heresy as a misunderstanding of what he was teaching. As I understand it, Arius was accused of saying Jesus was not eternal or as some might put it, not equal to the Father.

 

[Radagast]

The following version of the Nicene Creed is found at https://www.ccel.org/creeds/nicene.creed.html. The red words are those that I believe are unscriptural.

The Nicene Creed is totally scriptural, and Christians have always regarded it as a set of core beliefs.

one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not and made,

John 1:1-4 says: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit

John 1:14 says: And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

I see that the forum statement of belief says: "We believe that there is only one God, who is eternal and immutable, and manifests Himself in three distinct Persons; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah, born of a virgin, totally without sin, God in human flesh..." which pretty much summarises what the Creed says.

 

[jocor]

The Nicene Creed is totally scriptural, and Christians have always regarded it as a set of core beliefs.

Since you are just now joining us, please read my post #270 to get a brief summation of the issue. John 1:1-4 does not address the issue since it does not use the word γεννηθέντα ("begotten" in the creed).

 

[smaller]

Moreover, what is the Creed meant to accomplish? It was probably meant to form a visible written platform for the expressed cause of unity. Yet for the sake of unity, it seems more straightforward to say, that to know Jesus is to know God. Therefore, I can't help but think that those who felt the need to create a Creed, either knowingly or unknowingly, did so in service to vain political purposes that are contrary to the actual Spirit of the faith. John 5:39.

Studies of the history of alternatives shows a myriad of provably false alternative postures. It's also one of the first items on the list to base doctrine upon. So, yeah, kind of important to understand. And maybe just reciting the matters doesn't really equate to personal study, much, either.

 

[smaller]

I don't believe that impugning the motives of those who crafted the Nicene Creed is profitable in the least. The essential truths of Scripture are there, and we should accept it for what it is. But ultimately doctrine must be based solidly on Scripture.

I do believe that the early churches came, scripturally, legitimately to the conclusions of the Nicene Creed.

But what they did in actions afterwards was not all that great quite frankly, even if they had a legitimate doctrinal soundbite in the Creed.

 

[childeye]

Studies of the history of alternatives shows a myriad of provably false alternative postures. It's also one of the first items on the list to base doctrine upon. So, yeah, kind of important to understand. And maybe just reciting the matters doesn't really equate to personal study, much, either.

I find the Creed to be accurate in my reading of it. But I don't base any doctrine upon it. I base all doctrine on two commandments, Love God with all your heart mind and soul, and Love your neighbor as yourself. That is fundamentally what it means to believe in God and His Son. The Creed doesn't mention the word Love, which/Who IS the Eternal Spirit that all doctrine should exist to serve. If the subject of the Father's equality with the Son is to be questioned and answered, it should be based on this quality of Love, and not on who came first, the chicken or the egg.

As you can probably tell, I am more convinced that the Creed was drafted to combat Arianism. If so, it is therefore the product of a compulsion by one faction of Christian leadership to end what was viewed as the heresy of another, all in the name of unity. But then the intent is actually based on the fear that a lie might prevail if not assailed. If the fear is unfounded, then the end will be division and not unity in the Holy Spirit.

I've studied semantics and logic based on the knowledge that God is of the nature that would allow Himself to be crucified for the sake of sinners. I've never seen a lie that could overcome this sword of Truth, so long as one is basing that Truth on the knowledge that God's Love swallows death by returning good for evil in sincere mercy and understanding. The fundamental purpose of why one would return good for evil is not conducive with a Creed that would tend to alienate those who may or may not have been in error concerning Christ's status as equal to God.

There are circumstances in language and thought where semantics inevitably cause division. Sometimes people project their own biased fears onto others who do not share them. That is why we must love our enemies, and turn the other cheek, lest we make appear valid those fears, because of lack of perfect Love. Note that the children of the bondswoman, do persecute the children that are born of the freewoman, and not the other way around.