The Nicene Creed

[WIP]

Let's watch the personal comments and avoid using Scripture to abuse each other. We are here to divide Scripture and grow closer to the Truth not tear each other down.

 

[smaller]

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.

I would agree with those sights as what could be termed "doctrinal priority." Any other sight hangs on those, as Jesus also shows us, in

Matthew 22:40
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

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.

Or Marcionism or gnosticism or or or. The position was largely organized to combat a plethora of alternative claims.

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.

I probably don't see it that way. The construct itself is scripturally derived, meaning it WAS there to observe, and a distinction between Christianity and blinded Judaism, for example.

The Son as Gods Word and Image Is the defining feature of scriptural Christianity.

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.

Division was always meant to transpire, by Divine Intents. It's not a BAD thing.

Luke 12:
51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

Note that the children of the bondswoman, do persecute the children that are born of the freewoman, and not the other way around.

Ah, perhaps not so. We can easily see from Gal. 5:17 that the Spirit is against and contrary to the flesh for example. I might define this conflict as the "essence" of all conflicts and divisions. Even moreso when we examine how this state exists from scripture.

Scripture is quite odd in that a Word of God can and does have two entirely different intentions. I'm sure you've heard it analogous to sun melting ice or hardening clay.

Same sun, different workings. The concept of simultaneous but opposing truths is one of the hardest concepts to grasp in theology.

 

[childeye]

Or Marcionism or gnosticism or or or. The position was largely organized to combat a plethora of alternative claims.

I agree. However, all of these "isms" tend to be described and defined throughout history from the eyes of those that combatted them. What was labeled Gnosticism contains such metaphorical language, that one would need to consult the authors fro explanation. The reports given also reveal some bias use of language in saying what these "isms" believed.

I probably don't see it that way. The construct itself is scripturally derived, meaning it WAS there to observe, and a distinction between Christianity and blinded Judaism, for example.

The scriptures were not written to battle any "isms" other than Satanism. Any lie begins there.

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

The Son as Gods Word and Image Is the defining feature of scriptural Christianity.

It is the Gospel Truth. What is the difference between scriptural Christianity and non-scriptural Christianity? Can't one believe and walk in Christ as the True image of God through hearing the Gospel, and yet without ever having read scripture?

Division was always meant to transpire, by Divine Intents. It's not a BAD thing.

Luke 12:
51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

Christ as a sword of judgment is intended to divide, but yet his body is not meant to be divided against himself.

Ah, perhaps not so.
We can easily see from Gal. 5:17 that the Spirit is against and contrary to the flesh for example. I might define this conflict as the "essence" of all conflicts and divisions. Even moreso when we examine how this state exists from scripture.

I don't understand this response. Perhaps you would be willing to say why you think scripture says this: 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

Scripture is quite odd in that a Word of God can and does have two entirely different intentions. I'm sure you've heard it analogous to sun melting ice or hardening clay.

Same sun, different workings. The concept of simultaneous but opposing truths is one of the hardest concepts to grasp in theology.

I see one Truth that draws people from many differing, and even opposite directions, relative to the source of the Light. That could be misconstrued as opposing truths.

 

[Malachi]

The scriptures were not written to battle any "isms" other than Satanism.

That should be "to battle ALL 'isms" including Satanism". In Scripture "heresies" is in plural, not singular.

 

[childeye]

That should be "to battle ALL 'isms" including Satanism". In Scripture "heresies" is in plural, not singular.

Good point. But all lies are built on one original lie.

 

[smaller]

I agree. However, all of these "isms" tend to be described and defined throughout history from the eyes of those that combatted them.

As noted prior, I think the consensus sight on this matter is that it IS in the scriptures to see. There was no combat to begin with. I don't think the Nicene Creed changes anything about the scriptures in this matter. If it did, I would reject same. But it doesn't.

And it is a 'short cut' to understanding the scriptures end game on this particular matter.

What was labeled Gnosticism contains such metaphorical language, that one would need to consult the authors fro explanation. The reports given also reveal some bias use of language in saying what these "isms" believed.

The details of these various "opposing postures" are there to dissect, should any care to do so.

The scriptures were not written to battle any "isms" other than Satanism. Any lie begins there.

Deeper subject and perhaps off point. Even with the Nicene Creed understanding such constructs doesn't mean the person who understands is a believer. Many a technical scholar can concede that the construct is in the scriptures and not believe a word of it.

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

The poster in question can't be appeased by any aspect of it and hinges the entirety of supposed opposition on the term "begotten" by pulling it out of a larger observation. So what? I don't care what the guy believes to tell you the truth. It's not that difficult to see the construct in the scriptures. It's one of the easier positional understandings to engage.

It is the Gospel Truth. What is the difference between scriptural Christianity and non-scriptural Christianity? Can't one believe and walk in Christ as the True image of God through hearing the Gospel, and yet without ever having read scripture?

Depends on how picky we want to get about it. Would I condemn anyone over this matter? Uh, no. And that mainly to avoid falling into condemnation myself, so I'll admit my posture is for me AND in accord with scripture:

Galatians 6:4
But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.

Do I think Jesus is going to put us in the examination/cross examination chair on this subject prior to entry past the infamous Pearly Gates? Not for one second do I believe that.

Christ as a sword of judgment is intended to divide, but yet his body is not meant to be divided against himself.

The Body of Christ should understand that we all bear contrariness to the Spirit and that which is against the Spirit in our flesh. So, yeah, there is a division to be had by ALL believers. This is also what causes us to see only in part, which I concede to, personally. I also use this gauge to judge liars.

It's one of the odd things about Truth. IF Jesus said the church(es) have all truth, and some of that truth says we only see in part, how does that weigh in? Some churches have fallen headlong into thinking they have all truth, but they forget about the truth of seeing in part, so they left that "truth" out of their package of claims to having all truth.

Vicious circle, ain't it?

I don't understand this response. Perhaps you would be willing to say why you think scripture says this: 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

It's the identical sight that Paul brings out in Gal. 5:17. There is simply no way that flesh with indwelling sin, evil present, temptations, lusts, deceptions, corruption, dishonor, part sight, CAN be 100% on the same page as The Spirit. It's impossible. So even if a believer adheres to the Nicene Creed none of these conditions change.

I see one Truth that draws people from many differing, and even opposite directions, relative to the source of the Light. That could be misconstrued as opposing truths.

I might easier describe it as the same Word that saves us, condemns, inflames and empowers the opposition movement, the devil and his messengers. A more difficult understanding to come into.

We might think that when we crack open the scriptures to read, it's just 'us' as an individual reading. That isn't the case. See Mark 4:15 or any of the other seed parables for references to the "very real" adverse activity that also transpires where The Word is sown.

 

[jocor]

The poster in question can't be appeased by any aspect of it and hinges the entirety of supposed opposition on the term "begotten" by pulling it out of a larger observation. So what? I don't care what the guy believes to tell you the truth. It's not that difficult to see the construct in the scriptures. It's one of the easier positional understandings to engage.

Actually, my position is so easy to understand. The Greek word γεννηθέντα applies to coming into existence in the flesh at conception or birth or spiritually at one's resurrection. There is zero evidence from Scripture that it can refer to anything prior to creation. No one has provided the Scriptural or lexical evidence to prove me wrong. There is no "larger observation" in Scripture concerning the meaning of that word. Also, the English word "begotten" is not in question. This is an issue concerning the Greek of the creed when it says, "τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων" ("begotten from the Father before all ages/worlds"). You are assuming γεννηθέντα bears the meaning you desire, but you have no Scriptural proof. I choose to not give it a definition not found in Scripture or Greek lexicons.

 

[smaller]

Actually, my position is so easy to understand. The Greek word γεννηθέντα applies to coming into existence in the flesh at conception or birth or spiritually at one's resurrection.

I think the term the 325 creed says is:

"begotten, not made,"

They are trying to convey the same essence:

"being of one substance with the Father"

There is zero evidence from Scripture that it can refer to anything prior to creation.

There is no "time factor applied" to without beginning or ending status. The short version? "I Am."

No one has provided the Scriptural or lexical evidence to prove me wrong. There is no "larger observation" in Scripture concerning the meaning of that word. Also, the English word "begotten" is not in question. This is an issue concerning the Greek of the creed when it says, "τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων" ("begotten from the Father before all ages/worlds"). You are assuming γεννηθέντα bears the meaning you desire, but you have no Scriptural proof. I choose to not give it a definition not found in Scripture or Greek lexicons.

I think the creed addresses it just fine. It is only you who obsess with plucking the term and trying to make an issue that isn't there. As noted several times now.

 

[jocor]

I think the term the 325 creed says is:

"begotten, not made,"

They are trying to convey the same essence:

"being of one substance with the Father"

First, we are not discussing the 325 creed, but the 381 creed. Second, the 325 creed says;

We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the Son of God,
begotten from the Father, only-begotten,
that is, from the substance of the Father,
God from God, light from light, true God from true God,
begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, ...

The 381 creed says;

We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
light from light, true God from true God,
begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, ...

The 325 creed had it right. He was "begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father,".
The 381 creed messed it up by adding the words, "before all ages".

Third, notice the words "from" (Greek - ek) used several times. If the Son always existed, then "from" could not be used since it denotes an origin. Here is Strong's definition - "A primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence motion or action proceeds), from, out (of place, time or cause; literally or figuratively; direct or remote):". By using "from", it is telling us about the Son as a man, not as an eternal spirit being. "Begotten from the Father" tells us there was a point in time that he originated from the Father. Therefore, while the 381 creed tells us he originated from the Father when he became a man (just as the 325 creed said), it then confuses the whole issue by adding "before all ages".

There is no "time factor applied" to without beginning or ending status. The short version? "I Am."

I agree there is no time factor in the Christian doctrine of the Son being eternal, but there is a beginning when the word γεννηθέντα is used. That is basic Greek.

I think the creed addresses it just fine. It is only you who obsess with plucking the term and trying to make an issue that isn't there. As noted several times now.

Of course you would think that. I, on the other hand, think that you refuse to admit the creed author's messed up because that would mean millions of Christians are basing their beliefs on a faulty, man made document.

 

[childeye]

The poster in question can't be appeased by any aspect of it and hinges the entirety of supposed opposition on the term "begotten" by pulling it out of a larger observation. So what? I don't care what the guy believes to tell you the truth.

I do care what he believes, even as I care what you believe, even as I would want someone to care what I believe.

The Body of Christ should understand that we all bear contrariness to the Spirit and that which is against the Spirit in our flesh. So, yeah, there is a division to be had by ALL believers. This is also what causes us to see only in part, which I concede to, personally. I also use this gauge to judge liars.

It is true that the Word of God is sharper than any two edged sword. But the division I am speaking against is stated here. Romans 6:17.

It's one of the odd things about Truth. IF Jesus said the church(es) have all truth, and some of that truth says we only see in part, how does that weigh in? Some churches have fallen headlong into thinking they have all truth, but they forget about the truth of seeing in part, so they left that "truth" out of their package of claims to having all truth.

Vicious circle, ain't it?

I believe it is necessary only as much as we think that other peoples stink is worse than our own.[/QUOTE]

 

[childeye]

Of course you would think that. I, on the other hand, think that you refuse to admit the creed author's messed up because that would mean millions of Christians are basing their beliefs on a faulty, man made document.

Pertaining to the authors of the Creed, do you ever consider that you might have done the same thing in their shoes? I believe it's a simple misunderstanding.

 

[smaller]

I do care what he believes, even as I care what you believe, even as I would want someone to care what I believe.

I wouldn't ask anyone to bow to imperfection. Nor do I think we are capable of conjuring Perfection up on our own, by our own thoughts, whatever they may be. We are all Divinely planted in the flesh with very certain darkness/covering. Does the Nicene Creed remove that? Uh, no. The creed is not meant to be a be all tell all about christian faith. It establishes that Jesus Is Lord. If some don't believe that they are wasting their time with faith in Christ.

It is true that the Word of God is sharper than any two edged sword. But the division I am speaking against is stated here. Romans 6:17.

I noted essentially the same from prior citings. Hope you didn't see it otherwise.

I believe it is necessary only as much as we think that other peoples stink is worse than our own.

I don't believe a Nicene Creed adherent sinner is one bit better than a non adherent sinner. If I thought jocor's posture had any worthy merit, I would consider it. His main beef is the group he thinks it's from and that's probably closer to the real issue. But we can't talk about it anyway.

 

[smaller]

Of course you would think that. I, on the other hand, think that you refuse to admit the creed author's messed up because that would mean millions of Christians are basing their beliefs on a faulty, man made document.

No one puts their faith in the creed, but in Christ. Nor is the creed meant for that intention nor is it meant for us to put our faith in the men who put those words together.

The same understanding IS derived from scripture in any case.

 

[jocor]

Pertaining to the authors of the Creed, do you ever consider that you might have done the same thing in their shoes? I believe it's a simple misunderstanding.

I sure hope not. If I was one of the bishops sitting there when they added those words and formulated the creed in general, I would have opposed it just as I do today. I would venture to say that the majority of those who agreed to the creed did so out of fear of being treated as Arius was. It is hard to go against the majority opinion just as many Christians do in being fearful of not believing the trinity doctrine as it is presented today. I am not an Arian or a trinitarian, so I would have opposed both groups. Then they would have had a third position to consider. Then, Christians today would not only be saying Arianism is a false teaching, but jocorianism is a false teaching.

But, then again, I would have never been given the position of bishop in the church in those days because of my beliefs.

 

[smaller]

duplicate post delete.

 

[JLB]

I sure hope not. If I was one of the bishops sitting there when they added those words and formulated the creed in general, I would have opposed it just as I do today. I would venture to say that the majority of those who agreed to the creed did so out of fear of being treated as Arius was. It is hard to go against the majority opinion just as many Christians do in being fearful of not believing the trinity doctrine as it is presented today. I am not an Arian or a trinitarian, so I would have opposed both groups. Then they would have had a third position to consider. Then, Christians today would not only be saying Arianism is a false teaching, but jocorianism is a false teaching.

But, then again, I would have never been given the position of bishop in the church in those days because of my beliefs.

Just as I oppose those who deny Jesus as Lord, claiming He is only a man, thereby "redefining" what was meant by Paul saying...

that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus...

that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Romans 10:9-13

Jesus Christ is the Lord of the Old Testament.

The Son was sent into the world, and became flesh.

The Muslims say and confess Jesus was a man, a prophet of Allah.

JLB

 

[Jim Parker]

From post #1: "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 blue words are those I believe should be added to make the creed more scriptural. I will be commenting on the colored portions in other posts as I explain why they are either unscriptural or should be added."

I can't figure out why anyone would take such nonsense seriously let alone let it run for 16 pages!

But, what do I know???

iakov the fool 2

 

[childeye]

I sure hope not. If I was one of the bishops sitting there when they added those words and formulated the creed in general, I would have opposed it just as I do today. I would venture to say that the majority of those who agreed to the creed did so out of fear of being treated as Arius was. It is hard to go against the majority opinion just as many Christians do in being fearful of not believing the trinity doctrine as it is presented today. I am not an Arian or a trinitarian, so I would have opposed both groups. Then they would have had a third position to consider. Then, Christians today would not only be saying Arianism is a false teaching, but jocorianism is a false teaching.

But, then again, I would have never been given the position of bishop in the church in those days because of my beliefs.

Could you explain to me what you call a third position? Apart from that, please keep in mind, that we don't know what Arius taught.

 

[By Grace]

Could you explain to me what you call a third position? Apart from that, please keep in mind, that we don't know what Arius taught.

Arianism is a nontrinitarian belief that asserts that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, created by God the Father, distinct from the Father and therefore subordinate to the Father. Arian teachings were first attributed to Arius (c. AD 250–336), a Christian presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt. The teachings are opposed to mainstream Christian teachings on the nature of the Trinity and on the nature of Christ. The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by God the Father. This belief is based on an interpretation of a verse in the Gospel of John (14:28): "You heard me say, 'I am going away, and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

Trinitarianism was formally affirmed by the first two Ecumenical Councils. All mainstream branches of Christianity therefore consider Arianism to be heterodox and heretical. The Ecumenical First Council of Nicaea of 325 deemed it to be a heresy. At the regional First Synod of Tyre in 335, Arius was exonerated. After his death, he was again anathemised and pronounced a heretic again at the Ecumenical First Council of Constantinople of 381. The Roman Emperors Constantius II (337–361) and Valens (364–378) were Arians or Semi-Arians.​

Arianism is also often used to refer to other nontrinitarian theological systems of the 4th century, which regarded Jesus Christ—the Son of God, the Logos—as either a created being (as in Arianism proper and Anomoeanism) or as neither uncreated nor created in the sense other beings are created (as in Semi-Arianism).​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

Thank to Wikipedia, you now know!

Arianism is an ancient heresy. It is really that simple.

 

[jocor]

Could you explain to me what you call a third position? Apart from that, please keep in mind, that we don't know what Arius taught.

My position is that Yeshua is the Messiah, the Son of YHWH who began to exist as a living being when he was conceived in his mother's womb via the power of the Holy Spirit. His Father spoke him into existence (the word became flesh). Prior to that, he existed only in the mind of his Father YHWH.

As I understand it, Arius believed the Son preexisted, but not eternally, that is, that he had a beginning prior to creation.