Nicene creed


beefche
 Share

Recommended Posts

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)

If nothing else, the above demonstrates that the formulaters of this Creed sought to explain God in light of Scripture. To make a silly and obvious observation, they cited Bible, not Greek philosphers. How accurate, useful, and profound the product of their work is may be a discussion, but those who quickly dismiss Nicene as having no grounding whatsoever in Scripture, and as having merely been the product of in-fighting and the philosophies of men--well such a brusk appraisal seems rather uninformed. :cool:

Edited by prisonchaplain
formatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mormonmusic

To me, the Nicene Creed seems soundly based on scripture -- as do other attempts to describe the true nature of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. And these other conceptions aren't inconsistent with the Nicene Creed. All make sense when you hear the arguments and the scriptures used to back them up. And I've believed in both the Nicene Creed and the Godhead concept at different points in my life as a result.

What disturbs me is why such a Creed was necessary in the first place. The Bible is considered the ultimate souce of knowledge, so why wasn't it sufficient to settle this question -- without the Nicene Creed that came from it?

There are probably plausible answers I haven't considered, and I'd like to hear them. I hope my question doesn't offend anyone -- it's one that always comes to mind when the issue of the Nicene Creed comes up, and I've never had the benefit of asking informed people, who accept the Nicene Creed, what they think.

And this is one of those threads where I think I'll be listening more than talking...:)

Edited by mormonmusic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nicene Creed was a result of heretical teachings. In particular, Bishop Arius, out of a desire to explain Jesus to polytheistic pagans, chose to emphasize God's oneness, by saying that Jesus was subordinate to the Father. Fast forward 1600 years, and my own church developed a creed (Statement of Faith), primarily as a reaction against the modalism of Oneness Pentecostalism. Are the D&C primarily answers to questions that Joseph Smith and other church leaders raised?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, the Nicene Creed seems soundly based on scripture -- as do other attempts to describe the true nature of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. And these other conceptions aren't inconsistent with the Nicene Creed. All make sense when you hear the arguments and the scriptures used to back them up. And I've believed in both the Nicene Creed and the Godhead concept at different points in my life as a result.

What disturbs me is why such a Creed was necessary in the first place. The Bible is considered the ultimate souce of knowledge, so why wasn't it sufficient to settle this question -- without the Nicene Creed that came from it?

There are probably plausible answers I haven't considered, and I'd like to hear them. I hope my question doesn't offend anyone -- it's one that always comes to mind when the issue of the Nicene Creed comes up, and I've never had the benefit of asking informed people, who accept the Nicene Creed, what they think.

And this is one of those threads where I think I'll be listening more than talking...:)

The Nicene Creed was a result of heretical teachings. In particular, Bishop Arius, out of a desire to explain Jesus to polytheistic pagans, chose to emphasize God's oneness, by saying that Jesus was subordinate to the Father. Fast forward 1600 years, and my own church developed a creed (Statement of Faith), primarily as a reaction against the modalism of Oneness Pentecostalism.

I would say not just that, but because at the time, there wasn't a Bible to put in everyone's hand and it (the NC) was a clear, concise statement of belief that could be referred back to that was supported by accepted NT texts.

Are the D&C primarily answers to questions that Joseph Smith and other church leaders raised?

Yes. Many of the sections in the D&C were direct answers to direct questions asked to, or by, Joseph Smith in the early formative time of the church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mormonmusic

The Nicene Creed was a result of heretical teachings. In particular, Bishop Arius, out of a desire to explain Jesus to polytheistic pagans, chose to emphasize God's oneness, by saying that Jesus was subordinate to the Father.

So, what I'm hearing is that the Nicene Creed wasn't created to clarify the Bible, it was to emphasize or show ongoing commitment for the conception of God that always was clearly stated in the Bible -- as a re-affirmation of the truth to heretics, not as a clarifying document -- do I have this correct?

Fast forward 1600 years, and my own church developed a creed (Statement of Faith), primarily as a reaction against the modalism of Oneness Pentecostalism.

Are you saying that Oneness Pentacostalism represented significant deviation from the clearly stated conception of God in the Bible, and therefore needed a statement of correction, like the Nicene Creed did to Bishop Arius? I'm not familiar with the modalism of Oneness Pentecostalism, or the Statement of Faith, or the historical context, so this is what I think I'm hearing....please correct me if I'm wrong.

Are the D&C primarily answers to questions that Joseph Smith and other church leaders raised?

We believe they were words dictated to them by Heavenly Father, and are scripture, carrying as much weight to us as the Bible. Often these leaders posed questions about important issues as the Church evolved. These prophets received answers and wrote them down as scripture, as prophets of old wrote down scripture. I think the D&C differs from the Nicene Creed, as I don't believe the Nicene Creed has ever been considered scripture.

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question(s) by the way. I hope I'm not asking too many.

Edited by mormonmusic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, what I'm hearing is that the Nicene Creed wasn't created to clarify the Bible, it was to emphasize or show ongoing commitment for the conception of God that always was clearly stated in the Bible -- as a re-affirmation of the truth to heretics, not as a clarifying document -- do I have this correct?

Largely. Of course, in the process of defending the general doctrine of Jesus' divinity and equal nature with the Father, the Nicene Creed offered a teaching as to God's nature that was more precise that preceding consensus.

Are you saying that Oneness Pentacostalism represented significant deviation from the clearly stated conception of God in the Bible, and therefore needed a statement of correction, like the Nicene Creed did to Bishop Arius?

Yes. Classic Pentecostals affirm the Trinity. Oneness Pentecostals are modalists, believing that God is one person (Jesus) who manifests himself in three "modes" (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). It's all just Jesus.

I'm not familiar with the modalism of Oneness Pentecostalism, or the Statement of Faith, or the historical context, so this is what I think I'm hearing....please correct me if I'm wrong.

Monarchial modalism is the ancient heresy upon which Oneness Pentecostalism builds. To put their teaching in simplistic terms, they argue that one Jesus prophesied in Matthew 28:19-20 that the disciples would be baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that prophesy was fulfilled in Acts 2:38 (they baptized in the name of Jesus). Thus Jesus is the Father, is the Son, is the Holy Spirit. God is not three in one, but, say the Oneness Pentecostals, He is one in three.

My church's Statement of Faith has 16 points. However two-thirds of the verbage is a refutation of modalism, and a defense of the Trinity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mormonmusic,

The "Bible" at the time of the creed was not yet together. It was not until 410ad that the "Bible" was assembled into a form that we would even recognize. Contrary to a lot of assumptions, the oral teachings of the Church were what transmitted orthodoxy. The Bible itself talks about holding to oral teachings. The Church, as the Bible explains, is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). Christians at the time of the creed did not believe that "the Bible" was a of supreme authority. It was accepted and believed that authority rested in the Church--the institution that was still in the work of delivering the Bible.

The Creed was an exegesis of the books that were currently accepted and geographically spread. The The creed affirmed orthodoxy. It does not "add" to the Bible. The example of "clarifying" doctrine without "invalidating" former doctrine is what the Catholic Church continues to practice.

The Creed clarified doctrines that were being challenged. The Church through history has does that, but for reasons many non-Catholics use it as some sort of "starting point" to ascribe error.

Understandable, I can see how the clarification of doctrine by the creed could rub Mormon theology the wrong way. It certainly rubbed a lot of people the wrong way in the early 300s as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mormonmusic

Mormonmusic,

The "Bible" at the time of the creed was not yet together. It was not until 410ad that the "Bible" was assembled into a form that we would even recognize.

I have another question. Today, I hear consistently that one cannot add to or take from the Bible, and that it's the ultimate and final source of truth. All conclusions from personal revelation need to be consistent with the Bible.

If the Bible didn't exist yet, and certain books were later deemed unsuitable for inclusion in the Bible, what was the standard of truth against which doctrine could be compared at that time? Also, how did the creators of the Nicene creed judge the truthfulness of the Nicene Creed they created, when there wasn't a Bible or agreed-upon body of scripture to compare it to?

I think prisonchaplain implied earlier that truth was based on consensus with people granted authority by the Cathloic church at the time, however, I didn't want to make this assumption.

Edited by mormonmusic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mormonmusic,

1.

I hear people today make the same assumption about the Bible. Catholicism is not like that. Those who claim it are quoting from the end of the book of Revelation.

"...and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book." Rev 22:19

The problem with those who quote this verse are many. One is that Revelation was not the last Bible book written, It is simply at the end of the Bible for literary reasons and to show the Church's triumph and imagery of the Mass. This one fact should cause people to adjust their view. Second, Proverbs and Deuteronomy has similar language. So what we have here are three examples of saying not to "add" or to "take" from the word of God. The term "word of God" needs to be examined, which leads to your second point...

Personal revelation, to be "of God" is not necessarily "consistent" with the Bible. To be "of God" it would need to be "consistent" with the Catholic Church. If it is NOT "consistent" (which means X) then it is a revelation from something OTHER than the Church--and it may appear as an angel of light.

2

This goes to an "old" question by Mormons to non-LDS, "Where do you get your authority?"

The Bible was not yet organized, but the books were around. I guess I glossed over too much too quickly with too wide a brush. The order had not been determined. You want to know on what grounds did the Church find its authority to determine what is scripture? The Catholic viewpoint is that Jesus established a Church. Peter holds the keys. "Keys" in this case is not what "keys" are to Mormons; we see the Church as a Kingdom. Peter can bind and loose. In today's language, Peter was the first "pope" and his chair has authority over the entire Church. The Holy Spirit protects the Church and the Deposit of Faith

History supports the early churches (small c) looking to Rome (Peter's chair) to settle disputes, make final decisions, etc. Do the scriptures support such an idea? Absolutely! Scriptures teach that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. It does not say that the scriptures are the pillar and ground, it does not say that one's feelings are the pillar and ground, and it does not say that a collective mind of 30,000 denominations are the pillar and ground.

The creed is not scripture. It is sort of like LDS's Articles of Faith but adheres to the teachings of the Apostles (Bishops) in communion with Rome. The creed aids in defining orthodoxy. Keep in mind that at this time, the Church was twice as old as the LDS church is today, so you can imagine how it was time to clear up disagreements. When people read scripture, they want to interpret for themselves. To a point, that's ok. But the inevitable result of self-interpretation is division and chaos, which is what nearly defines 30,000 communities who all think they are "right."

The Bible is a product of the Catholic Church. The Church is not a product of the Bible. To aid in providing a unified interpretation of the scriptures, the Church drafted the creed. The Church had the authority to do so by the authority given to Her by Christ. The Catholic Church still has that authority to bind and loose, to settle claims, and clarify doctrine without invalidating prior doctrine--even though several new 19th century American communities bank on being otherwise.

3

I don't really understand the third question, but I'll try to sum things up.

•"Adding / taking from the Bible" is not understood by those who wave it overhead shouting, "Sola Scriptura!"

•The Bible does not say what the Bible is. "Sola Scriptura" is illogical and unbiblical.

•The Bible's contents was determined by the Catholic Church with the HS's guidance.

•The Creed clarified doctrine. The Creed is scriptural. The Creed holds to the teachings of the Fathers. The Creed is the the product of an authoritative Tradition.

I hope I have time to look at your other threads. Forgive me if I am in and out in the near future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

•The Bible's contents was determined by the Catholic Church with the HS's guidance.

This is not true. There technically was no Catholic Church at that time. There was just local assemblies very loosely bound. This is just something that the RCC says to try to disavow the authority of Protestant religions. The Bible was assembled under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (God), not a church body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not true. There technically was no Catholic Church at that time. There was just local assemblies very loosely bound. This is just something that the RCC says to try to disavow the authority of Protestant religions. The Bible was assembled under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (God), not a church body.

well that settles that.

Edited by theophilus
Bla bla bla removed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

•The Bible's contents was determined by the Catholic Church with the HS's guidance.

This statement makes sense to me as a LDS. . We feel as though some Christian denominations practice a form of Bibliolatry, we as LDS don't base our faith on the Bible. We base our faith on what the Bible is based on, revelation given through prophets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

I think PC's explanation is very good. I think the Nicene Creed is a good way of explaining things found in the bible (along with, I would add, the deuterocanonical books, Church Fathers and early church writings) in a creedal way. It's a way for the Church to definine that this is a set of teachings we all hold to and agree on. Specifically, Nicea sets out to express that Jesus has always existed as God, contrary to the teaching of Arius who said that Jesus was divine, but not pre-existent. The difficulty people get into with the creed is the line that says, "Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father". People get wrapped up around the axle on this because the language is unfamiliar to most of us. What do they mean by "substance" (or "essence" as the earlier version says)? Whatever they mean by substance/essence is the same concept as "Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made". That entire line is expressing the same concept.

Still it is confusing to a lot of people. I think the primary reason it becomes difficult to us is because of differences in ontology. Ontology is simply the study of existence. What does it mean for something to exist? For us today, we have a sort of material-based ontology. Something exists in virtue of the set of material properties it holds (atoms, molecules, space/time location, physical properties, etc..). We seem to assume this sort of ontology as our cultural default. Under this sort of ontology, Trinitarian formulations will not make sense because the Father and Son obviously do not have identical sets of material properties. Eg. the Son was physically born of the Virgin Mary while the Father was not. Under a material based ontology the Father and Son are different Beings because they have different physical/material properties.

But the early church fathers do not have a material based ontology and neither do the biblical authors. The early church fathers have an immaterial-based ontology and they will use terms like "substance" and "essence" to talk about what it means to BE. I think two key terms come to mind when talking about this; two definitions we need to understand before we can begin to understand the ECF's:

Essential Property: P is an essential property of some object 'x' if and only if x necessarily has P when x exists. Ǝ(x), x → □(x►P) (read: if there exists some object x then x necessarily has P).

Essence (synonomous with "Substance" or "Being"): For some object x, E is an essence of x if and only if E is essential to x and everything distinct from x has not-E essentially. Ǝ(x, y), x, y → □(x►E & y►~E) (if there exists some objects x and y, then x has essence E and y has not-E).

The Church Fathers seem to me to approach things with this sort of definition in mind. God, they may say, is essentially omnipotent. Everthing distinct from God is not-omnipotent. Omnipotence is a property of God's Essence. That is God is essentially omniptent, if He wasn't He wouldn't be God, and everything distinct from Him is not-omnipotent. Then they would explain that the Father is omnipotent and the Son is omnipotent as well. But does this mean that omnipotence is then not a property of the Essence of God? Well, no. They would say that the Father and Son are the same Power and acting on the same Power. Further, they may argue against the possibility of their being two distinct Beings who are both omnipotent (for an example see Athanasius, Against the Heathen, 1.7). So we are left with the conclusion that the Father and Son are both the same Essence/share the same Essence. But this does not mean they are identical because there are properties the Son has that the Father does not (and vice versa). For example, the Son has the property of "dying on a Roman cross" while the Father does not. So we have One Being that is at least two persons (since I'm not discussing the Holy Spirit at this moment).

For the biblical writers, especially the earlier ones (and I tend to think probably all of them), don't have an immaterial or material based ontology. For them, they would have what I would call a functional-based ontoloy. For them, something exists in virture of the function is performs. For something to exist means it has a purpose, a function. John Walton gives some good arguments for this ontology in "The Lost World of Genesis One" and "Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament".

The Nicene Creed will express the same thing as the biblical writers, but it will not express it in the same exact manner. They seem to be operating with different systems of thinkng, not that one is correct while the other incorrect (false dichotomy and/or genetic fallacy), just that they are different. One is very Ancient Near Eastern/2nd Temple Jewish while the other is western. And it's not that one uses the bible while the others don't. The NT writers heavily use the OT and the church fathers will extensively use the OT and NT. Their ideas are very biblically based. Idon't think they added to the bible so much as they expressed what was already there, but they didn't express it in the exact same matter. It appears that for them that the logical end of the revelation of Jesus was the Trinity.

Edited by JimmieD1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The interesting thing about the Trinity in contrast with the Godhead is that most people debating the two viewpoints don't realize how similar the two are.

Trinitarians seem to think we're Arian-Christians. Latter-Day Saints mistakenly believe that Trinitarians is Modalism or Unitarianism. We're definitely not Arian in our thinking, and Trinitarians are definitely not Modalists or Unitarianists. It's quite interesting to watch somebody defending the Trinity doctrine: They'll use many of the same scriptures as a Latter-Day Saint would to defend their belief in the Godhead.

While discussing the Godhead and the Trinity in depth with anyone, I often find myself going from, "Wow, we believe exactly the same thing!" to "Wow, we believe something totally different!" Many advocates of the Trinity seem to have mixed understandings of the meaning of "one substance." Trinity purists will understand it as being three separate persons who are of the very same material -- essentially linked while still remaining distinct. But some have taken it to mean something more along the lines of "cut from the same cloth" -- and that would fit with our understanding of the Godhead just fine. We agree that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are each Omnipotent, Omnicient, etc. There are some points that are vastly different of course.

The trouble I have with Nicea:

1.) What Biblical precedent is there for gathering together a committee of bishops together and through debate and discussion establishing eternal truth?

2.) The non-Christian Emperor Constantine convened the Council to begin with.

3.) When the discussion was deadlocked, Constantine picked a side, laid down the law and pronounced severe penalties upon all who did not agree.

4.) So essentially a non-believer pagan monarch was God's voice for establishing the most important eternal truth of all: "What is God?"

5.) Later in life, Constantine regretted the harshness with which he had dealt with the followers of Arius. For that reason, he started to ease up on his treatment of Arian Christians.

6.) Possibly as compensation of sorts, the foremost Trinitarian, Athanasius, was deposed and exiled by Constantine.

7.) A year before he died, Constantine was baptized by an Arian Christian.

8.) So effectively, the instrument of receiving God's will on the matter of defining and describing God betrayed his own belief in the Trinity and seems to have reversed position somewhat.

9.) Not surprisingly, Constantine's successor, Constantius II was more Arian than Trinitarian. Thus, the debate between the two sides would rage on for more than a century.

10.) The Council of Nicea was convened to reconcile the dispute between Athanasius and his followers against Arius and his followers. The aftermath of the Council would see Arius assassinated and Athanasius exiled and disgraced.

11.) Of the Eccumenical Councils of the Church, only Nicea is mostly accepted by all traditionally-minded Christian denominations. Some of the 22 Ecumenical councils are actually rejected by the Catholic Church today. So doesn't that undermine the supposed authority of all other such councils? Would that not undermine the authority of the Council of Nicea?

Those are just a few of the reasons that I have a very difficult time viewing the proceedings of the Council of Nicea as divinely inspired. It seems a lot more similar to the current debate in Congress over Health Care -- Which is to say it seems like a typical bunch of politics.

I sincerely believe that those who formulated the Trinity teaching were trying their best to describe God in such a way that would fit with the Scriptures. It certainly does work as a context for interpreting the scriptures dealing with the nature of God. I think they got it wrong, but that doesn't mean they weren't sincerely trying their best. And as stated, from my point of view, they came very, very close.

I do find it very interesting: The leadership role taken by Constantine in this matter would establish the Emperor of Rome (and NOT the Bishop of Rome) as the ultimate Earthly authority in all of Christendom for the next few centuries. Indeed, the last vestiges of the primacy of the Emperor died with the last Holy Roman Emperor and the Last Tsar of Russia at the end of World War I. Both were claimants to the successor ship of "Emperor of Rome and Head of Christendom."

History supports the early churches (small c) looking to Rome (Peter's chair) to settle disputes, make final decisions, etc. Do the scriptures support such an idea? Absolutely!

How is the Bishop of Rome the successor of Peter? There is no evidence that Peter ever led the Church from Rome. There is no evidence that he was ever in Rome for any great length of time in his entire life. We do know that he led from Jerusalem and Judea repeatedly in the New Testament times, but we have no record of him leading the Church from Rome. We certainly have no reference that he was ever the Bishop of Rome.

I certainly agree that Peter's was foremost of the Apostles with God-given authority higher than the other Apostles. But I don't follow the logical leap that puts a line of successor-ship to Peter's position in Rome. Wouldn't the Bishop of Jerusalem be a more logical successor?

Edited by Faded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faded,

Sorry I have not poked in here for over a month; leaving you hanging.

•You think it would be more "logical" for the Bishop of Jerusalem to be Peter's successor? People often think that God should operate in ways that they think are logical. Even in the New Testament, Nathanael in John 1 couldn't understand how "anything good" could come from Nazareth. People have a tendency to believe that a royal heritage could have a beginning in lowly place. However, prophets were different. Consider Micah 5 where Bethlehem was declared the birthplace of our King! In other words, Micah was not the typical person who though God should operate on a human logical operating system. An example of another Mormon believing that God should act as a human was Joseph Smith when writing the BofM. Alma suggests that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem (not Bethlehem). From my perspective, Joseph as Alma was thinking just like you, Faded. Actually, I think Joseph just had a memory lapse when he was writing Alma and relied on his human intuition and wrote in "Jerusalem" instead of "Bethlehem." That's just me and I'm not slamming you, I'm just showing how your presumption of divine logic is bathed in human frailty.

•Your wording when describing Peter's place in Rome was carefully crafted. So I'll bite. True, there is little evidence that Paul was in Rome. The only 1st century document supporting this is in the Bible itself and it can only be derived if the horrible Catholic premise of Peter's presence in Rome is accepted. This is an example of how important Tradition is in the Church. That tradition of Peter being the Bishop of Rome was not contested for over 15 centuries until men wanted to start building their own churches. Even the "reformers" considered it to be "theory" to claim that Peter was not in fact the Bishop of Rome. Only modern theory claims that he wasn't. I personally find it easier to believe in Atlantis than to think Peter's seat in Rome was not legit and prime. All the successors believed it. It was so clear that it was never contested.

•A lot of your "troubles" are based on a misunderstanding of how the Church works. Catholics believe Christ when he said he would build his Church on Peter. Catholics believe Him when he said the gates of hell would not prevail against that Church. We believe Paul when the Bible testifies that the Church (the actual body of Bishops and successors) are the pillar and foundation of truth. We believe Christ when he gave the Bishops (Apostles) authority to loose and bind. We believe the Bible when it teaches us to follow the teachings of the Bishops. The Bible itself even describes the EXAMPLE and ORAL Tradition that was to be followed.

•Concerning Constantine: As a result of not knowing much about the Church, you've run with the Constantine theme. I've seen threads killed here when non-Mormons tell Mormons what they believe but you seem to have little problem arguing that Constantine was some sort of Church authority. I hear it a lot, it's like Democrats shouting out "Haliburton, gitmo, big oil" all the time.

Because Catholics believe that there is only one Church, that Church will not die, that Church has authority, what that Church teaches is correct, that Church is protected by God to secure the Deposit of Faith, we have no trouble accepting that an illiterate pagan warrior named Constantine could be used to protect Her in a time when our writings, our leaders, and our existence were being systematically erased from the planet. However, Rome (the empire) protecting Rome (code for "the Church") does not imply in any way that Constantine was the Pope.

•You wrote that the "emperor taking a leadership role established him as ultimate earthly authority." Well, you can think that, but it isn't thoughtful. It's complete nonsense.

•With all of that in mind.. Forgive me if my comments are short. If you were asking questions, I'd give you better answers but your hit list is a collection of statements that really have nothing to do with Nicea and are based nonsense that anti-Catholic sources have been distributing for decades.

1) First, the council of Jerusalem is a Biblical precedent for a council. Second, the Church has every right to meet in any way it desires (even without Biblical precedent) to discuss or debate eternal truths (see my notes above). The Church exists without the Bible, but the Bible does not exist without the Church. If you don't believe this, then throw your Bible in the trash because if the Church was not allowed to meet to discuss truth, then your Bible (or at least the portions that you have) would not exist.

2) Constantine wanted unity within the kingdom. The Church wants unity within its Kingdom as well. The emperor may have called the council but Pope Sylvester sent two reps to the council in his stead. Why are you inserting your own "rule" that councils need to be called by the Pope?

Here's a good time to discuss something that most Protestants and Mormons ignore: More than 80% of the Bishops were Arian. If Constantine wanted a "simple unity" without authentic Christianity within his kingdom then he would have insisted on Arianism becoming an apparent orthodoxy. THE FACT that he allowed Rome's (the Church) stance on "Trinity" to become written orthodoxy shows that he actually AFFIRMED Rome's primacy. Constantine did not usurp the seat of Peter, he affirmed it. This fact should, in an unbiased mind, show the PROVIDENCE of God! Where you see scandal, I see amazement! I see God's promises working themselves out.

3) As I just wrote, there was no "deadlock" in theology. Constantine affirmed Rome's stance.

4) No, the Emperor did not finalize any dogma.

5) Again, you are confusing "Constantine" with "the Church" or fusing them together in you mind somehow.

6) So?

7) I don't know who baptized him, it doesn't matter. He is not the Church. I guess it would make sense that he was baptized by an Arian considering the context of the area, time, and sorts. But again, who cares? Why not bring up the price of tea in China?

8) Even if Constantine "changed" his mind on the matter, how does that indicate that the Church "changed" its mind? In your "world" and in your thinking Constantine on his deathbed should have forced the Bishops together to write a new creed. But of course he didn't. EVEN if your allegation of the Church "changing its mind" is true, then you should apply the same rule to the witnesses of the BofM who did a lot more than "change" their minds.

9) Faded, we are talking about the Creed.

10) Again, this is about Necea and the Creed.

11) We (Catholics) lead. By definition, Protestants don't obey. If they honor our leadership (councils) then that is to their own good. If they choose to be separated, then that is their choice. The fact that Protestants don't honor the CC is not a charge against the Church.

I can only remember one 9th century "robber council" that fits what you are saying. It had to do with internal leadership structure; not dogma. I've seen "lists" like yours a million times, some of them mention supposed councils that weren't even Catholic. If you want to discuss the substance, then let's do.

In conclusion:

Believing that Constantine was Pope is false. The premise is modern. Nobody made that argument for most of of the life of the Church. The Church has every right to discuss dogma. The Church has every right to declare truth. Nicea affirmed Rome's primacy (which wasn't even an issue--everyone knew it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9) Faded, we are talking about the Creed.

Very true. I'll split off my thoughts wandering away from the Council of Nicaea into a different thread.

Let me offer a bit of insight into where I"m coming from. Frankly, I'm a hopeless history geek. It's not focused upon Mormonism at all. My father was a High School History teacher and later a college History professor. I suppose that's where I started to love history. I acknowledge that I have a passion for studying and digging into history.

I find religious history (all religions) particularly fascinating. As one professor of mine put it, "The study of religious history is the study of history. You can't separate the two. You can't truly understand history if you don't understand the history of religion."

While I was in college, one of my assignments was to do an in depth research project on a significant historical figure of my choice. I felt that learning about Constantine the Great in depth would be a worthwhile undertaking. After all, he is probably one of the most significant individuals that ever lived for many, many reasons. Frankly, I was more than a little surprised by what I learned. Constantine did important things certainly, but he was certainly not a very good person. I was not fully aware of the much-flawed man behind the legend before that.

And when I wanted to learn about the history of the Popes, I sought out and found a Catholic author who seemed to be a forthright an honest historian, not given to historical revisionism. The best reference I found was: Amazon.com: Lives of the Popes - reissue: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI (9780060878078): Richard P. Mcbrien: Books

Copying and pasting the summary about the author.

"Richard P. McBrien is Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame. Educated at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, he has also served as president of the Catholic Theological Society of America. A leading authority on Catholicism, he is the bestselling author of Catholicism, Lives of the Popes, and Lives of the Saints, as well as the general editor of The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism. Most recently a consultant for ABC News, McBrien offers regular commentary on all the major television networks. He is also a prizewinning syndicated columnist in the Catholic press."

I don't believe in going to the enemies of Catholicism to learn about Catholicism. An honest Catholic historian is much less likely to have any hidden agendas. I know that I don't appreciate people going to hatefully biased sources when looking into my religion, so it would be wrong of me to do the same to your religion.

I'll leave off discussing Papal succession for a different thread. As you said, here we're discussing Nicaea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think it would be more "logical" for the Bishop of Jerusalem to be Peter's successor? People often think that God should operate in ways that they think are logical. Even in the New Testament, Nathanael in John 1 couldn't understand how "anything good" could come from Nazareth. People have a tendency to believe that a royal heritage could have a beginning in lowly place. However, prophets were different. Consider Micah 5 where Bethlehem was declared the birthplace of our King! In other words, Micah was not the typical person who though God should operate on a human logical operating system. An example of another Mormon believing that God should act as a human was Joseph Smith when writing the BofM. Alma suggests that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem (not Bethlehem). From my perspective, Joseph as Alma was thinking just like you, Faded. Actually, I think Joseph just had a memory lapse when he was writing Alma and relied on his human intuition and wrote in "Jerusalem" instead of "Bethlehem." That's just me and I'm not slamming you, I'm just showing how your presumption of divine logic is bathed in human frailty.

It is off topic, so I won’t give it too much treatment, but explaining this bit couldn’t be simpler.

You’re referring to:

Alma 7: 10

10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

For starters, consider that the Nephites were half a world away from the Holy Land they came from. Alma would have been saying these words in about 83 BC, so to him, the Kingdom of Judah was a 420 year old semi-legendary place. It’s a place he’s heard about and read about in the scriptures, but Alma is not intimately familiar with the local geography of Israel. I doubt the Nephites would have had a map of the land of Israel in Alma’s time. In this passage, when Alma says Jesus would be born at Jerusalem, he obviously meant “in the land where our forefathers came from.” The Nephites and Lamanites alike seem to frequently refer to their ancient homeland as “The land of Jerusalem.” I could cite numerous examples from the Book of Mormon to demonstrate, but I’d prefer to not get too far off-topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was puzzled by the fact that you brought the primacy of Rome into the discussion, but as stated, I'll try to get another thread up to discuss that.

•Concerning Constantine: As a result of not knowing much about the Church, you've run with the Constantine theme. I've seen threads killed here when non-Mormons tell Mormons what they believe but you seem to have little problem arguing that Constantine was some sort of Church authority. I hear it a lot, it's like Democrats shouting out "Haliburton, gitmo, big oil" all the time.

Because Catholics believe that there is only one Church, that Church will not die, that Church has authority, what that Church teaches is correct, that Church is protected by God to secure the Deposit of Faith, we have no trouble accepting that an illiterate pagan warrior named Constantine could be used to protect Her in a time when our writings, our leaders, and our existence were being systematically erased from the planet. However, Rome (the empire) protecting Rome (code for "the Church") does not imply in any way that Constantine was the Pope.

•You wrote that the "emperor taking a leadership role established him as ultimate earthly authority." Well, you can think that, but it isn't thoughtful. It's complete nonsense.

•With all of that in mind.. Forgive me if my comments are short. If you were asking questions, I'd give you better answers but your hit list is a collection of statements that really have nothing to do with Nicaea and are based nonsense that anti-Catholic sources have been distributing for decades.

It was by the decree of Constantine that the Council of Nicaea was called and it was by his authority that the decisions made at Nicaea were enforced. Meanwhile, "Pope" Sylvester was almost completely uninvolved. So would it not be more correct to point out the obvious: Constantine presided over the Council of Nicaea? "Pope" Sylvester wasn't on the guest list unfortunately. That seems odd to me considering the crucial importance of what was being decided at Nicaea.

As previously stated, my sources and research are Catholic sources. NOT anti-Catholic sources.

1) First, the council of Jerusalem is a Biblical precedent for a council.

A meeting that we know very little about. Several presumed references to this meeting may even be referring to something else entirely. Did the meeting at Jerusalem you're referring to bear any resemblance to the Ecumenical Councils centuries later? Neither of us can answer that question. You will presume, "Yes, of course it did." because you believe the Roman Catholic Church is God's authorized body on Earth. I will presume, "No, it was probably nothing like an Ecumenical Council." because I believe there was an Apostasy and that the RCC is not God's authorized body here on earth. Neither of us can offer up a definitive description of the Council of Jerusalem.

Second, the Church has every right to meet in any way it desires (even without Biblical precedent) to discuss or debate eternal truths (see my notes above). The Church exists without the Bible, but the Bible does not exist without the Church. If you don't believe this, then throw your Bible in the trash because if the Church was not allowed to meet to discuss truth, then your Bible (or at least the portions that you have) would not exist.

The scriptures say that God is the same yesterday, today and forever. The implementation of a system where eternal truth is established by committee would be a drastic change for a being who supposedly doesn't change.

And consider the Jews. They had legitimate authority handed down from God. They injected a bunch of their own thoughts and traditions into things. Jesus Christ and God rejected them, and they rejected Him. If the only authorized body on earth can stray hopelessly far from God once, it can happen again. And presuming that "we can do whatever we want and nobody can tell us differently" is probably falling into the same prideful trap as the Jews.

2) Constantine wanted unity within the kingdom. The Church wants unity within its Kingdom as well. The emperor may have called the council but Pope Sylvester sent two reps to the council in his stead. Why are you inserting your own "rule" that councils need to be called by the Pope?

Constantine seemed to be the one calling the shots. Sylvester sat on the sidelines and the Council certainly was not going out of its way to solicit his opinion. It seems to me that Peter's successor was awfully aloof to the proceedings that were deciding the most important questions in the history of Christianity.

Here's a good time to discuss something that most Protestants and Mormons ignore: More than 80% of the Bishops were Arian. If Constantine wanted a "simple unity" without authentic Christianity within his kingdom then he would have insisted on Arianism becoming an apparent orthodoxy. THE FACT that he allowed Rome's (the Church) stance on "Trinity" to become written orthodoxy shows that he actually AFFIRMED Rome's primacy. Constantine did not usurp the seat of Peter, he affirmed it. This fact should, in an unbiased mind, show the PROVIDENCE of God! Where you see scandal, I see amazement! I see God's promises working themselves out.

3) As I just wrote, there was no "deadlock" in theology. Constantine affirmed Rome's stance.

4) No, the Emperor did not finalize any dogma.

My sources seem to indicate exactly the opposite. It's quite evident to any honest historian that Constantine had a HUGE impact on the outcome of Nicaea. And it is quite obvious that Sylvester has VASTLY less impact on absolutely everything to do with Nicaea than Constantine did.

I think the rest of your response comes down to drastic differences of understanding. My background suggests that when God wishes to reveal his will to mankind, he does so directly and definitely. You're background accepts politically and theological debates followed by a vote to be legitimate means for God to reveal important eternal truths. That notion absolutely unfathomable to my thinking.

Constantine called together a few hundred bishops who debated and ultimately voted on, "What God is like." To me, it seems absolutely bizarre for that to be revelation from God. And it is my opinion that nothing short of definitive revelation from God could legitimately answer a question THAT IMPORTANT. The very nature of God is just too fundamental.

I can only remember one 9th century "robber council" that fits what you are saying.

That is an example of what I'm referring to. In that case, because subsequent generations of religious thinkers decided that the Second Council of Ephesus was a "robber council." So if a properly convened Ecumenical Council can be wrong in one case, why not all of them?

It's also quite interesting that the Council of Pisa of 1409 (attempted to solve the Great Western Schism) is not a numbered Ecumenical Council nor considered valid because it was not convened by a pope and because its outcome was later repudiated at the Council of Constance.

There was also a unrecognized Council convened well before Nicaea, but it is not considered valid because of its Gnostic proclivities ... and I can't remember what it was called for the life of me. Again, if a gathering of bishops is enough to establish truth, then why would this council be invalidated? If even one council can be invalidated, how authoritative can we presume the remaining 22 accepted councils to be?

Ultimately, you're post is very long and I don't think I'll ever be able to respond to all of it. At the very least, it would take more time that I care to offer. That doesn't mean there are no answers to all of your points of course.

We both sincerely believe that the religious body we belong to is God's Church and Kingdom here on Earth. We both believe that God's Earthly Kingdom was always intended to be a united and organized body. It's a concept we have in common. We also both sincerely believe that God's Kingdom on Earth must have an established hierarchy. We also agree that the keys passed down from Peter and the other apostles are a valid standard of legitimacy. We both believe in authority originally deriving from God, and passed along by men of God. Primarily, we just disagree on where the legitimate authority from God resides.

Edited by Faded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faded,

I started to read your first reply, I'm interested and I see a little of myself in you. I don't have the time right now to dedicate my mind your 3 comments but I'll be back.

Thanks.

Shall I forebear creating a thread discussing the validity of the Popes' claim to be Peter's successor? It's worthy of discussion, but I don't want to begin it if you're short on time. I'm sure I don't have to tell you, it's a DEEP and INVOLVED topic.

For most Latter Day Saints, it's an unfamiliar topic, so it would be worthwhile to discuss at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shall I forebear creating a thread discussing the validity of the Popes' claim to be Peter's successor? It's worthy of discussion, but I don't want to begin it if you're short on time. I'm sure I don't have to tell you, it's a DEEP and INVOLVED topic.

For most Latter Day Saints, it's an unfamiliar topic, so it would be worthwhile to discuss at some point.

You can do anything you want. I probably won't participate. This is probably my last post.

I don't know what your particular arguement is, but I'm pretty sure it's been made many times before you. I think God could write his case (again) on the moon in 100 mile long letters for everyone to read, but many would still prefer a Catholic Church with no rightful succession. They prefer a form of Godliness but deny its power.

So sure, bring it up. Tickle the ears of people who've already decided the outcome. I've learned to cast my pearls elsewhere. For those who think I'm backing down, that's fine. Perhaps it shows the literal exhaustion it is to deal with this particular Protestant/LDS topic that I sincerely believe is a king of brainwashing. I think you'd appreciate my being frank.

Keep in mind the hypocrisy of this forum that you are demonstrating so clearly. Just imagine if I came on with threads with the intent to try to show how I know the LDS church is a fraud. What if I came on and posted threads showing how Mormons can't understand their own modern scriptures? I could start threads until the cows come home. But then hypocrisy is accepted... After all, there is a rule here on how non-LDS are to treat LDS and not how LDS are to treat non-LDS. It's a rule I am familiar with and was not surprised to read.

As for your other comments:

I think I can boil you concern into one area: You think that if a council can be thrown in the trash then any council can fairly be thrown in the trash?

Fine. I see you concern and I guess it makes sense to those who think a horse is a horse. But of course, the contents of councils are different. Like I mentioned earlier, the Church and the HS protect the Deposit of Faith. There has never been any matter of faith or morals that have ever been thrown out. Perhaps you have accepted the myth that Catholics think ALL contents of councils are infallible?

But I think this is the really the heart Nicea that bugs you: (warning, being frank again)

But the content of the Creed is what concerns you, isn't it? To Christians, the Creed widened the scope in which we understand God WITHOUT invalidating the former Apostles Creed (the pattern in which our discoveries happen). Notice also that the Creed does not "say what God is." The Church doesn't do that. It's a tempting thing to do! Mormons, though, have decided to take that route.

The mysterious Trinitarian God of the Christians is rebuilt into the image of man. Defining God as being the same species as man and angels, not only makes the Mormon god the same as every other god, but it provides within a person's theology the possibility of developing (evolving) his movement into a religion that promises godhood. This evolution is simple to see in Smith's own writings. Smith wasn't always a polytheist; he developed his theology chronologically into polytheism.

Our Trinitarian God bugs you I know. A trinitarian God makes it impossible for anyone who calls himself a "Christian" to believe in several Gods, which is central to your church. And if it is impossible for polytheism to be true, then the "Mormon version of theosis" is a lie. In other words, Trinity keeps you from becoming a god. So in your mind, the Creed must be discredited (although it is from the Bible word for word). Therefore the Bible must be discredited (it is missing plain and precious parts), and the Church didn't even have the authority to draft it in the first place (apostacy).

One must wonder why Mormons carry around a corrupted Bible compiled by a corrupt Church. I think it is because it is easier to for Smith to let Christians do the heavy lifting. Inventing a completely new form of "christianity" would have been tough to do but utilizing keeping the Bible under one arm gives the appearance of Christianity. This is why the LDS Church doesn't overtly advertise the Bible's lowly rank within the LDS scriptures. This is why the LDS Church doesn't bring up the most repugnant of all LDS beliefs within the first discussion (as man is, God once was...), doing so isn't "edifying to faith-building." Most people are organisms that don't question these things, they can't discern these things, they want to believe that anyone who is "christian" has no secrets.

So go ahead, follow the plan. Use OUR book, the Bible, to try to undermine us. Use the book that OUR saints died to give us. What you are doing is the same as breaking into someone's bedroom and stealing their diary, then insisting to the rightful owner the meaning of the words.

Yeah, I'm disgusted. But don't hold back, educate the masses who are eager to lift up their own thrones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

theophilus I do apologize if I have offended you in some way. I have my strongly felt opinions and so do you. I certainly did not intend to upset you. You are tossing a few stones in your comments, but I've little doubt of your sincerity in your beliefs.

I don't see much point in having a discussion about Petrine succession if there is no catholic to give their side of things, so I won't bother.

I've wandered onto "Christian" forums myself, and I was blown away at how much abuse I received there. I hope I haven't done the same thing in any way.

The debate between the two viewpoints is quite simple. Either Joseph Smith saw God and Christ or he did not. If he did, then what God taught him about their nature and characteristics was true. If it is true, then the fact that it offends deeply entrenched Trinitarian thought is completely irrelevant. You can't turn a brick into a loaf of bread just by believing it's a loaf of bread. God is what he is whether everyone agrees or not. The fact that the Pharisees declared that Jesus of Nazareth could not possibly be the Messiah because he did not fulfill X, Y AND Z traditions they had about the Messiah doesn't change the fact that he most certainly was the Messiah.

I'm sorry if you feel that Protestants and Mormons are being ungrateful to the early Church for their sacrifices and diligence in preserving the New Testament we have today. I never said I wasn't grateful to them. However, gratitude does not require us to agree with every teaching of the Catholic Church.

But to be fair, how much gratitude has Catholicism shown the Jews for THEIR BOOK the Old Testament? Not much. Unless massacre and persecution at every turn is some hidden form of thanks.

I remain sincerely interested in understanding why traditional Christianity clings so tightly to Nicean Theology. I think I understand the biggest reason: Rethinking the Trinity would be like yanking the foundation out from under the house, so Protestants, Orthodox and Catholics alike all tend to view the Trinity as something that is simply not open to discussion. That tends to make discussing it quite challenging.

Again sorry if you were offended by anything I've said. I'll endeavor to be more tactful in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share