Re: Disagreements With the Nicene Creed?
 

Gods chosen 85

GC Your preaching to the choir, been there raise all my life that way know all the passages. Probably have as good if not better understanding of the Godhead but that's debatable LOL. The point I am making is this how well do you know your trinity brothren? Have you just written them off because they don't have revelation of Oneness? I did. I came at them and blew them out of the water, ready to debate them. Years later when I shut up and let God speak to my heart did I listen to them. Granted there are those that are died in the wool trinies. But many if not most see the godhead as we do with trinity wording.

Don't forget its been a hundred years since azuza street and the division of oneness and trinies. And because of the hard line of many oneness preachers (standards of holiness) many oneness have left proformance based oneness, and found home in trinity churches. They have taken thier oneness and holy ghost with them. This has its effect.

The point of this thread is if we truely have anything in the creed, that is not bible. My thought is that when we try to put together creeds of our beleif outside of the plain word of God, that is where we have problems. Point: UPCI and their standards of holiness. They have compiled there list of what holiness is based on the way they read certain passages. This is their creed yet the writters no where list any of the things legalistic churches list as holiness standars in line with holiness. I hope I explained that right. lol

Re: Disagreements With the Nicene Creed?
 

One of the things that must be pointed out here are the historical considerations pertaining to the creed. Understanding its context can illuminate, and, perhaps, disolve many of the merely apparent problems some people have with it.

First, the form that has been posted here is not the Nicene Creed of AD 325, but the Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed of AD 381. The original creed is actually a bit shorter, saying very little about the Holy Spirit. This is because, historically, the council wasn't about the Trinity or even the nature of Christ (it was primarily an administrative affair), but was a note on the Arian controversy (Arius of Alexandria considered Christ to be a mere creation--albiet semi-divine creation--of the Father). Thus the creed built on other early creeds (notice the similarities with the Apostles Creed and others in, e.g., Irenaeus and Tertullian) in simply restating the interpretation of the fathers (thus offering nothing new there), and diverged from them in pointing out the error of Arius (hence 'light from light, true God from true God,' and 'from the same substance,' etc.). Thus the lack of detail on the Holy Spirit whom the fathers before the council spoke much of (once again, see Irenaeus and Tertullian), and the unimportance of the council for the next several decades afterwards, is illuminated by these facts.

Second, the reason for the expansion of the creed in Constantinople in AD 381 was due to the deficiencies of the original; i.e., there was far too little on the Holy Spirit for the Nicene Creed to be considered an actual summary of the faith. This was taken care of, thanks to the Cappadocians, in AD 381. Hence the creed here is an ecumenical statement of the faith, the original, not so much.

Finally, the phrase 'and the Son' is not a part of the original Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed of AD 381 (remember, the Nicene Creed said little about the Spirit). The assertion of this phrase (filioque in Latin) was the eventual cause (at least it was said at the time to be) of the split between the Orthodox in the East, and the Catholics in the West (called 'the Great Schism of 1054'). The creed as quoted here, then, is a Western interpolated version, not the original Greek version. A side note, the term 'catholic' means 'universal,' while 'orthodox' means 'right thinking.' These were merely descriptors in the creeds, while durning the great Schism they became titles of the particular branch of the church in question. Thus we should read 'catholic' and 'orthodox' in the creeds in their correct contexts.

Considering these details can greatly illuminate the creed, its form, function, and style. I have attached a JPG with a table comparing the creeds for those interested.

Re: Disagreements With the Nicene Creed?
 

Thanks for the information, Cody.

Re: Disagreements With the Nicene Creed?
 

:thumbsup

If I had to choose a creed that I can agree with, it would be this one. As a child I memorized it in Methodist Sunday School.

Re: Disagreements With the Nicene Creed?
 

:highfive:highfive:highfive

Re: Disagreements With the Nicene Creed?
 

I'm affraid I have to disagree about AD 325 being a 'bad year' for the Church. I will quote M.C. Steenberg here from his newest book, "Of God and Man: Theology as Anthropology from Irenaeus to Athanasius," (T&T Clark Int'l, 2009): "The common tendency to treat Nicaea as a new beginning, rather than a moment within an ongoing dialogue of anthropological/theological articulation, lies behind the enigmas that surround its place in history, and contributes to the problematic compartmentalization of 'trinitarian theology' as a fourth century, post-Nicene phenomenon.... Precisely one century after Tertullian's death [c. 225], some 300 bishops ["the actual number of bishops present was more likely in the range of 200-250" p109 n12] assembled in the city of Nicaea to consider, among other things, the response to this question proffered by fellow African, and one squarely on the Greek side of the emerging linguistic and intellectual divide: Arius of Alexandria. Were one to accept without qualification the portrait of the council painted by Athanasius some 30 years after its convening, it would seem a monumental shift in the life of the Christian Church and the definition of its theology, summarized in 'the council's zeal for the truth [End p104] and the exactness of its sense' against those who 'stood out in their irreligion and attempted to fight against God' ["Athanasius, De Decr. 32; 3. The precise dating of the De decretis is difficult to determine, but should be placed somewhere c. 350-56." p105 n1]. Or, to follow the characterization of Eusebius [in his Vita Constantini 3.6].... Both Athanasius and Eusebius had specific goals they wished to advance through their reporting on the council. Even the most devoted reader will recognize a bias in these words, though clearly bias is not always negative, nor a thing to be shunned. Largely through the influence of these two men, at least in practical terms, Nicaea does become a figurehead council, and its creed a centre-point of doctrine, in the centuries to follow--'the cotter pin of Christian doctrine and the necessary ground of the very possibility of Christian God-talk', as Alan Torrance has characterized it [A. Torrance, 'Being of One Substance with the Father', in C.R. Seitz (ed.), Nicene Christianity: The Future for a New Ecumenism. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2001, p52.]" (Steenberg, "Of God and Man," p105).

Steenberg goes on to say: "I suggest a somewhat revised, though not radically new, reading of the history of Nicaea and the content of its creed (p106)... Nicaea is regularly addressed, directly or implicitly, as primarily a doctrinal gathering focused on articulating a proper conception of the Son's relation to the Father, spurred on to one degree or another by perceptions of Arius' thought. Here already a substantial distortion of even our scant evidence, however, for the Nicene council was, like the majority of local council's before it, primarily administrative nature. While today we may most often read solely the 'creed' or symbol of Nicaea, the council's real character cannot be represented without at the first recognizing that some 90 per cent of its deliberations had no specifically doctrinal bearing. Of the various texts recorded of Nicaea, all 20 of its canons are (predictably, as canons) concerned with matters of ecclesiastical oversight and administration; and a synodal letter to the church of Alexandria and the bishops in Egypt recounts the circumstances of the synod and its summons, together with a summary of its creedal statement and canons, encouragement in recovering from a schism surrounding Meletius, and a comment on the settlement of the Paschal debate [Letter preserved in Athanasius, appendix to De Decr.]. This latter issue seems to have captured the attention of most who focused on the council in early records: it forms, for example, the main thrust of Eusebius' interests in his account of the council in the Vita Constantini. One document alone, that containing the brief confession of faith, contains directly doctrinal material" (Steenberg, "Of God and Man," p108).

Re: Disagreements With the Nicene Creed?
 

Cody

Thank you for the very informative presentation, good thoughts too many times we have accepted the slanted views of things as they are given to us without questioning if they are completely right or not just because of the position of the one giving out the info.

Re: Disagreements With the Nicene Creed?
 

Oh I thought this was going to be a discussion about the Filioque controvery. The Eastern Orthodox insisting that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father only while the Western Roman Catholic Church says that the Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

"And the Son" isn’t in the original Greek version of the Creed. It was inserted later by Western Christians and eventually authorized by the pope.

Filioque is the Latin term for "and the Son."

Cleary the Orthodox are wrong because various Bible passages indicate that the Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

John 15:26 But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.

Acts 2:33 Being exalted therefore by the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath poured forth this which you see and hear.

Gal. 4:6 And because you are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father.

Re: Disagreements With the Nicene Creed?
 

I believe in one God, the Father almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things, visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God.
And born of the Father, before all ages.
God of God: Light of Light: true God of true God.
Begotten, not made,consubstantial with the Father,
by whom all things were made.
Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven.

Here kneel down.

AND BECAME INCARNATE BY THE HOLY GHOST OF THE VIRGIN MARY:
AND WAS MADE MAN.
He was crucified also for us, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was buried.
And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures.
And ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father.
And He shall come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead.
And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life,
Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Who, together with the Father and the Son,
is adored and glorified: Who spoke by the prophets.
And in one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I confess one baptism for the remission of sins.
And look for the resurrection of the dead.
And the life of the world to come.
Amen

O holy Lord, Father almighty, everlasting God; Who, together with Thine only-begotten Son, and the Holy Ghost, art one God, one Lord: not in the oneness of a single Person, but in the Trinity of one substance. For what we believe by Thy revelation of Thy glory, the same do we believe of Thy Son, the same of the Holy Ghost, without difference or separation. So that in confessing the true and everlasting Godhead, distinction in persons, unity in essence, and equality in majesty may be adored.


The creed was written in 325 A.D. at the Ecumenical Council (Nicaea 1) and later revised at the Ecumenical Council of (Constantinople 1) in 381 A.D.