Nicene creed

[beefche]

For those who hold to the Nicene Creed, can you explain to me why? I've heard from my Christian friends that the Bible is sufficient and perfect, yet they trace so many of their beliefs to the Nicene Creed. In fact, their definition of Christian comes from this. I'm just trying to understand why they hold the Nicene Creed as a standard. Wasn't it made up of a bunch of men who wanted to clear up anything ambiguous from the Bible? How isn't that considered adding to the Bible?

Please set me straight. Thank you.

[prisonchaplain]

Do not confuse the "Bible only" mantra with a rejection of church history and teaching. Teacher is one of the gifts of the Spirit. The Protestant Reformation was not a wholesale rejection of all that is Catholic. Most of Catholicism's teachings remain central to our beliefs. The Nicene Creed is a key example of a set of instruction that has withstood 1600+ years of scrutiny.

Most churches have "Statements of Faith," very much like your Articles of Faith. They are a core set of beliefs around which the churches unite. They explain Scripture, and provide parameters for the particular group. And, truth be told, a good portion of these look very much alike. They look very Nicene.

So, we hold to it, not as Scripture, but as an explanation that continues to ring true. And, it surely does show that for all the alleged chaos and different interpretations that LDS tend to accuse us Protestants of, we actually are fairly united in our main teachings.

[Dr T]

Thanks PC; I agree with your last post. Yes, Beefche, there was a lot that went into the words and disagreements during the writings there. There were various factions pushing for certain things but in the end, it was all about being true and faithful to what is written in scripture. As PC said, there is a unifying of the Christian church denominations on the essentials and we have various little things that we have different opinions about. It is the fundamentals that are key in making a claim to Christianity and those are some of the things that were addressed in the Nicene Creed.

[beefche]

Thanks for your replies. I'm still a little confused, though. You say that it remains as the fundamental or core belief of the many denominations. I find that confusing. If this document is the fundamental, how are there so many different churches? I know the LDS explanation, but how do my non-LDS friends explain this?

Also, one of the confusing things for me is that the Christian denomonations hold the Bible as scripture--written by God. One of the critcisms of the LDS church is that our interpretation of the Bible verses are incorrect. But, I'm confused on how everyone decided that the interpretation from the Nicene Creed is from God. If it were from God, then it would be scripture, right? If it was a bunch of men (pious or not), then it would be a result of their interpretation. How is that acceptable?

I sincerely don't mean for this to be an accusation against your beliefs. I'm just trying to understand.

[prisonchaplain]

Thanks for your replies. I'm still a little confused, though. You say that it remains as the fundamental or core belief of the many denominations. I find that confusing. If this document is the fundamental, how are there so many different churches? I know the LDS explanation, but how do my non-LDS friends explain this?

Over-simplified history of Protestant denominations: Luther started it by trying to reform his mother church. Mother said be silent or get out. He left, and started Lutheranism. Not on purpose, but for conscience sake. Once the idea that authority rested in church hierarchy was broken, some of the learned teachers began to disagree. John Calvin in particular, developed a set of teachings stressing God's sovereignty. These became Presbyterian and various groups with "Reform" in the name. They are said to be "in the Reform tradition." Other churches aligned with a detractor, Arminius, who stressed free will.

In the 1800s there were numerous revivals in America, including the Campbellite ones. The Churches of Christ came out of this. Some say that your church owes at least some of its teachings to this strain. Interestingly, Adventism developed in the middle 1800s, and what would become the Jehovah's Witnesses in the late 1800s. The Salvation Army developed because the uptown churches did not really want the Skid Row converts in their pretty churches.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s the Pentecostal revivals were rejected by established churches. Thus, many independent congregations developed. However, due to a burning desire to accomplish effective missions, some organized. The Assemblies of God, the Church of God in Christ, the Church of God Cleveland TN, and others developed. They were not competing, but rather just decided to organize at different times and places. In fact, many Assemblies of God ministers initially got their ordination cards from the Church of God in Christ (predominantly African American), so they could ride the train for free (clergy got free passes in those days).

In the past generation many have felt that denominations were superficial organizations that over-emphasized differences. So, many non-denominational churches rose up. Often these also have loose affiliations amongst themselves.

Also, one of the confusing things for me is that the Christian denomonations hold the Bible as scripture--written by God. One of the critcisms of the LDS church is that our interpretation of the Bible verses are incorrect. But, I'm confused on how everyone decided that the interpretation from the Nicene Creed is from God. If it were from God, then it would be scripture, right? If it was a bunch of men (pious or not), then it would be a result of their interpretation. How is that acceptable?

Our Scripture is the Bible. That's the final authority (thus "Bible only"). A statement of faith are the core doctrines of a particular church or denomination. They are a declaration of how the particular group understand the Bible, and what it's core teachings are. Again, most have strong elements of the Nicene Creed in them--though not direct quotations. These are important. And often, they quote scripture. Nevertheless, should a person leave my church due to a disagreement, and join another, I would expect to see him/her in heaven, where we'd find out who was right. So, though very important for understanding, Statements of Faith are not Scripture, and are not the final authority.

[beefche]

Thanks PC.

LDS claim that the reason for so many denominations is that Christ's authority was not on the earth and thus men did the best they could with the knowledge they had.

Our church does owe a lot to the reformists--they helped pave the way for so much that allowed a young 14 y/o to claim a vision of God and not be killed on the spot.

I think my core misunderstanding comes from our belief that God's church would be established by God Himself and that His Truth is One Truth. It's confusing to me that so many churches use the Nicene Creed as a statement of faith, but differ from other churches that use the same thing. Yet they acknowledge that all are ok in God's eyes. There's a line in "Steel Magnolias" that I think sums up this "God don't care which church you go to, as long as you show up." Nice sentiment, but in my LDS belief He wants us to know His Truth.

Again, I don't mean this as criticism (I'm sorry if it comes across that way--I just don't know how to say it more tactfully).

[Dr T]

Hi Beefche. You are doing great with your question. I've heard the LDS church also has a lot of splinter groups also. If that is true, what do you do with that given what you just claimed? Thanks

[beefche]

Haha! I lost my bet to myself--I thought PC would be the first to bring this up.

To me, the difference is that these splinter groups (to my admittedly very limited knowledge) differ alot from our core beliefs. The major splinter, Community of Christ (RLDS), is now venturing away from the BoM and even the first vision of Joseph Smith. I went to Nauvoo (in Illnois) in May of this year and took a tour of the CoC property. As part of the tour, they show a film and this film simply refers to Joseph as someone who had an "inspired event."

Some of the other splinters differ in practicing polygamy. Again, my knowledge is limited but these splinters also seem to regard the BoM as something less than scripture but more than just a book. And some of them use different versions (I know the CoC did before when they were RLDS--I can only assume their BoM remains as different from ours).

Yet, they claim the same "roots", but differ so much from our beliefs. Yet, in the non-LDS Christian world, all claim to believe the Nicene Creed and the Bible. And at least 2 of my Christian friends (I'm looking at you Dr. T and PC ) claim that the core beliefs are the same for the many denominiations. So, it is confusing to me what would explain the differences.

[Dr T]

Basically for me the "non-essentials" would be things like baptism (if it has to be by full emersion or sprinkling), baptism of infants vs. "profession of faith", how often you do Communion and what the parts need to include in that like unleavened bread, etc, view of rapture events, and many other things like that while the fundamentals are about WHO God is as laid out in scripture (Monotheistic, Triune-Father, Son, Holy Spirit, that is ONE God), belief that we are sinful and in need of redemption, who Jesus was and what He did for us. Now with all that I know that I cannot say who is a truly a Christian or not as that is God's job/decision, but I can see things that make me question people's adherence and the legitimacy of their claim of being Christian and seeing what differs from my understanding of what is presented in the Bible.

[beefche]

Dr. T, do you have link to the Nicene creed? I looked on wiki and saw that there are several versions, depending on which church you belong to (which brings up a whole new kettle of fish).

Is there one version that Christian faiths adhere to? According to wiki (which is infallible I know /sarcasm), there are several English versions--Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, etc. I didn't do a research, but why so many different ones? Obviously, there are differences or there wouldn't be different versions. So, now I don't understand why a church adheres to one Nicene interpretation, but not another.

[Dr T]

That is a great question. I'd rec. a book called, God in Three Person by E. Calvin Besner. It is a short and easy read that does a great job with this topic. My review of this book was: E. Calvin Beisner tracked the progress and misunderstanding of the Doctrine of the Trinity from the New Testament, through the ante-Nicene thinkers, and through the multiple difficulties with gnosticism, neo-Platonism, subordinationism, polytheism, Monarchiansm, and finally Arianism and the various forms of each. It is a book, that in my opinion, does a great job contrasting the orthodox Christian understanding of what is taught in the Bible vs. the pseudo-Christian Trinities. It finishes with the final Nicene Creed and the support by section. Overall, I saw it as well written and accurate in its depth. Its readability was easy without sacrificing the profundity of the God being the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I appreciated the author’s tone and respect of other's views but still pointed out why the early Christians put in so much work and clarification so as to properly elucidate their view of the concepts and biblical support for their beliefs. I walked away with a better understanding of the rival thoughts that were actually misunderstandings of other church thinkers and political moves to seize control and influence using some political maneuvering. Again, it was well written and left me with a strong understanding of the historical context and the importance of vocabulary distinctions within each council. I highly recommend picking up this short book and hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

[prisonchaplain]

Thanks PC.

LDS claim that the reason for so many denominations is that Christ's authority was not on the earth and thus men did the best they could with the knowledge they had.

Protestants believe the Bible is the ultimate authority, and then when Jesus confered the authority of his name and the power to heal, forgive, and deliver people from demons, that authority was given to all disciples. So, while churches were clearly established, we do not read in Scriptures the same level of hierarchy found in LDS and Catholic teaching.

I think my core misunderstanding comes from our belief that God's church would be established by God Himself and that His Truth is One Truth. It's confusing to me that so many churches use the Nicene Creed as a statement of faith, but differ from other churches that use the same thing. Yet they acknowledge that all are ok in God's eyes. There's a line in "Steel Magnolias" that I think sums up this "God don't care which church you go to, as long as you show up." Nice sentiment, but in my LDS belief He wants us to know His Truth.

God's church, in Protestant thinking, is the small-c catholic, or in modern English "universal" church. It's not an organization, but a people. Because of this some insist on NON-denominationalism. The rest of us see value in working together for common mission, and so work under denominational structures.

[prisonchaplain]

BTW, concerning LDS splinter groups, is not your church's answer that they are simply wrong, and do not have Christ's authority?

[beefche]

BTW, concerning LDS splinter groups, is not your church's answer that they are simply wrong, and do not have Christ's authority?

Yes, that is a simplified way of saying that...we also say that about other churches as well. :)

[beefche]

Thank you so much for your replies. I think I'm going to need to stop asking questions, because I'm afraid I'm starting to delve into asking questions which require answers in defense of your beliefs, which isn't what I want. I've started posting questions at least 3 times, but after reading them felt they were too...not sure of the word...just marking the difference between your church and LDS.

[prisonchaplain]

...just marking the difference between your church and LDS.

:bouncing:

Sorry...but I am a dog owner.

[beefche]

LOL. Funny PC!

[Snow]

Do not confuse the "Bible only" mantra with a rejection of church history and teaching. Teacher is one of the gifts of the Spirit. The Protestant Reformation was not a wholesale rejection of all that is Catholic. Most of Catholicism's teachings remain central to our beliefs. The Nicene Creed is a key example of a set of instruction that has withstood 1600+ years of scrutiny.

Most churches have "Statements of Faith," very much like your Articles of Faith. They are a core set of beliefs around which the churches unite. They explain Scripture, and provide parameters for the particular group. And, truth be told, a good portion of these look very much alike. They look very Nicene.

So, we hold to it, not as Scripture, but as an explanation that continues to ring true. And, it surely does show that for all the alleged chaos and different interpretations that LDS tend to accuse us Protestants of, we actually are fairly united in our main teachings.

Do you find it strange that not a single bible author, no prophet, apostle or even the Savior had an understanding of the today's dogma of the Trinity?

[prisonchaplain]

Do you find it strange that not a single bible author, no prophet, apostle or even the Savior had an understanding of the today's dogma of the Trinity?

No. IMHO the Savior did, of course, have that understanding, though did not have the need express it in intricate Nicene terminology. As for the others, I see several passages that indicate Christ's divinity, as well as that of the Holy Spirit. Yet, I never see a renunciation of monotheism. The Council of Nicea's explanation of God's nature was a response to abberant teachings that arose long after Christ's ascension. Heresies and opposition have a way of fine-tuning doctrine.

[Snow]

No. IMHO the Savior did, of course, have that understanding, though did not have the need express it in intricate Nicene terminology.

At least we can be sure that if Christ did have an understanding of Nicene Trinity, He and the other Biblical authors didn't think it important enough to have mentioned or explained it.

As for the others, I see several passages that indicate Christ's divinity, as well as that of the Holy Spirit. Yet, I never see a renunciation of monotheism.

You can find bits and pieces of the Trinity in the Bible but the whole concept is not found in the OT and NT.

The Council of Nicea's explanation of God's nature was a response to abberant teachings that arose long after Christ's ascension. Heresies and opposition have a way of fine-tuning doctrine.

Or - in this case, creating new and non-biblical doctrine.

[Moksha]

Do you find it strange that not a single bible author, no prophet, apostle or even the Savior had an understanding of the today's dogma of the Trinity?

Look, the committee designed the elephant the best they could. There was so much prior input involved, that the committee felt that giving it three trunks answered all engineering concerns. Placement of the ears was left to local discretion.

:)

[ADoyle90815]

The church I go to also accepts the Nicene Creed, and when catholic church is mentioned, it's meant as a universal church. Even though they ordain women and now gays as clergy, it's often called "Catholic Lite," as many rituals are similar to the Roman church, especially in High Church congregations.

[Jenda]

Do you find it strange that not a single bible author, no prophet, apostle or even the Savior had an understanding of the today's dogma of the Trinity?

I find the accounts of Christ's baptism in Matthew (3:16, 17), Mark (1:10, 11), and Luke (3:21, 22) to be exceptional demonstrations of the Trinity in action.

[theophilus]

The Nicene Creed

We believe in...

ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6: 4, Ephesians 4: 6)

Father (Matthew 6: 9)

Almighty, (Exodus 6: 3)

Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1: 1)

and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1: 15-16)

And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11: 17)

Son of God, (Mathew 14: 33; 16: 16)

Only-Begotten, (John 1: 18; 3: 16)

Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1: 2)

Light from Light; (Psalm 27: 1; John 8: 12; Matthew 17: 2,5)

True God from True God; (John 17: 1-5)

Begotten, not made; (John 1: 18)

of one essence with the Father (John 10: 30)

through whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1: 1-2)

Who for us men and for our salvation (1 Timothy 2: 4-5)

came down from heaven, (John 6: 33,35)

and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary (Luke 1: 35)

and became man. (John 1: 14)

And He was crucified for us (Mark 15: 25; 1 Corinthians 15: 3)

under Pontius Pilate, (John 19: 6)

suffered, (Mark 8: 31)

and was buried. (Luke 23: 53; 1 Corinthians 15: 4)

And on the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures, (Luke 24: 1 1 Corinthians 15: 4)

and ascended into heaven, (Luke 24: 51; Acts 1: 10)

and sits at the right hand of the Father; (Mark 16: 19; Acts 7: 55)

and He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24: 27)

to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10: 42; 2 Timothy 4: 1)

Whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1: 11)

And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14: 26)

Lord, (Acts 5: 3-4)

Giver of Life, (Genesis 1: 2)

Who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; (John 15: 26)

Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3: 16-17)

Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19: 20; Ezekiel 11: 5,13)

In one, (Matthew 16: 18)

holy, (1 Peter 2: 5,9)

catholic, (Mark 16: 15)

and apostolic Church. (Acts 2: 42; Ephesians 2: 19-22)

I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. (Ephesians 4: 5)

I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11: 24; 1 Corinthians 15: 12-49; Hebrews 6: 2; Revelation 20: 5)

and the life in the age to come. (Mark 10: 29-30)

AMEN. (Psalm 106: 48)

[theophilus]

No, it is not interesting that no prophet, apostle or even the Savior had an understanding of the Trinity.

BECAUSE you are assuming your premise (and saying you know the mind of Christ).

Since you are assuming what the prophets, apostles, and Savior understood, It is more than fair for me to assume you are hoping that arguments of silence are in fact arguments.

But if silence was the case...

Are we to really believe that the idea of Trinity was invented at Nicea?

Where did the idea come from"

What was Arius fighting against?

It is only reasonable that if a "well-fashioned" argument against Trinity was developed, then the object of Trinity was in existence. For example, Canada nearly defines herself as NOT being America (sorry Canadians). Are we to believe that America doesn't exist?

Revelation is a process. Trinity revealed itself in pieces. Consider Is 9:6

Jesus=

•Mighty God

•Councelor

•Father

•Prince of Peace

Lools like God is slowly revealing himself to me... not to mention Deut and Eph (see creed note).

Also worth noting is that the Creed does not invalidate the earlier creed.

Edited December 8, 2009 by theophilus
Edit: Sorry Canadians