Nicene Creed -- what's yer beef?

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Alright, I've opened the can of "Finest Grade AAA Trouble."

While I know that the RCC and the Anglicans don't have a problem with the Nicene Creed (let's not get into a discussion about the filioque), I know many Protestant sects do. I have difficulty understanding this, as it seems to me to state the very fundamental of basic Christian principles and beliefs.

So, here it is

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 Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made:
Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man;
And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered 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 the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets;
And we believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.
We look for the Resurrection of the dead,
And the Life of the world to come. Amen.

Just a note -- the word "catholic" in this usage means "universal." Has nothing to do with the RCC.

So tell me, why does your faith take umbrage to the Nicene Creed?

 

[Rhamiel]

While I know that the RCC and the Anglicans don't have a problem with the Nicene Creed (let's not get into a discussion about the filioque),

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU
I am tired of talking about.
I know the Methodist use the Creed and I would say only a very small minority of Christians do not use the creed at all.

 

[archierieus]

From my experience, many Protestants use the Creed or at least adhere to it. The one issue which I do not find Scriptural support is the following:

"of one essence with the Father"

That is indeed a can of worms:

1) No such language appears in Scripture;
2) I understand the concept derived from Eastern 'mystery' religions, and is an example of the inroads of paganism into the Christian church.

Dave

 

[DeaconDean]

deleted to keep the peace

 

[E.C.]

2) I understand the concept derived from Eastern 'mystery' religions, and is an example of the inroads of paganism into the Christian church.

So, we must be all-knowing on any and all things Christian related?

If that is the case, than tell me all the details on how divinity and humanity were able to unite in Christ.

Tell me, if Christ is not of 'one essence with the Father' than doesn't that negate His divinity; thus giving some legitimacy to heresies such as Gnosticism and Arianism including their present day manifestations?

Why can there not be some bit of mystery in Christianity? If all things were known, than wouldn't that take about 99.9% meaning out of life?

Pray tell, what are other 'inroads of paganism into the Christian church'?

 

[winsome]

Perhaps the problem for some Protestants is that to accept the Nicene creed would give some credence to the authority of the Council of Nicea. That would be a slippery slope that might lead to accepting that the ECFs had something to say that was worth listening to.

Best to ignore everything between the death of the last Apostle and the time of Luther & Calvin etc.

 

[seashale76]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oMGgOozpXM

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Alright, I've opened the can of "Finest Grade AAA Trouble."

You have????


Lutherans and Anglicans profess the Creed every single Sunday, as a part of the Mass. Together, we are about half of all Protestants.






.

 

[BigNorsk]

I find a lot of people are confused about the begotten references.

In the older English version you use, "only begotten" is basically a mistake. The Greek is monogenes (apologies for font or the lack thereof) which is properly translated in the Apostles Creed in Latin as unicum. But in the Nicene Creed we see the mistaken unigenitum, also used in Jerome's Vulgate.

And so the English was always a correct translation of the Latin, unigentum, but a mistaken translation of the Greek, which rightly could be translated as unique or one of a kind.

I don't like the current trend of just using "only" while correct when the term is used for Jesus it doesn't actually transmit a lot of the meaning. A verse that shows this would be Hebrews 11:7 where Abraham offers up his monogenes son, Isaac. Isaac is not Abrahams only son, he is his unique, one of a kind son of the promise.

So I think it would be a good thing to properly translate the "only begotten" as unique.

Then the second begotten causes people problems as well. There really is no verse that specifically teaches this. What you do have is that Jesus always was, he was not created and begotten describes the relationship between a Father and Son.

One creates something of a different nature, one begats something of the same nature.

Biggest hurl for people is that they read begotten and they end up with there must have been just the Father and then he begot the Son. So they read it like it's teaching an event which it doesn't. And the "before all worlds" makes sure that isn't understood. Maybe we should go with the more literal translation eons or even time. People read it in that translation and can end up with First there was God the Father, then he bagat Jesus and then he made everything else. Which goes against the very things the Creed is trying to teach.

So, in conclusion. I find many of the objections are due to misunderstandings and rejection of things that people think the Creed is teaching but isn't really teaching. Language is always a bit sloppy and the English translations haven't always been the best. Indeed some of the misunderstandings that show up in the Creed translations actually seem to be the sources of groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses who take the mistakes and make them their foundation.

Marv

 

[Polycarp1]

Some comments:

Deacon Dean, I would be grateful if you don't take the following as any sort of personal attack on you or your faith, but I have found that substituting the Bible for the Creed, a result of Reformation and later views by the way, often results in trhe sort of behavior that can be witnessed in the ethics and morality forums here, where people use the Bible as a weapon to attack the Christianity of others with whom they disagree. Whatever your views, that's a misuse of what God intended it for. And, of course, it gainsays two important issues: the importance of Holy Tradition to churches to which over half of all Christians belong, and the question of which canon to accept: Ethiopian, Septuagint, Tridentine, Anglican, or 66-book evangelical Protestant. That's more important than it may look, if you want to erect the Bible as your rule of faith.

As against the Creed, there is one issue we would all do well to confront: it does, as noted by archierieus, depend on Greek philosophical/theological categories to describe God. This can be an issue for modern minds willing to accept Christ but having issues with those philosophical distinctions.

Big Norsk, I've seen one thing on "only-begotten" that I felt was excellent: Christ is God. Men make things that are not human, from stools to spreadsheets; they beget (or bear, if women) babies, who are and/or become other people of the same nature as themselves. Monogenes does not describe God's hypothetical sex life, but rather says that the Son is the same sort of thing as the Father, truly God, not a piece of Creation like everything else from angels to earthworms. That is for me a distinction worth keeping in some way.

Finally, let's note that the Fathers at Nicaea were not writing a catechetical thesis on the nature of God and His Creation -- the key point of the Creed is "I believe in God". Everything that follows that simply specifies what God it is that one believes in -- not Zeus or Allah or Quetzalcoatl, but the one true God who loved the world enough to send His only Son that we might not perish but be eternally reconciled to Him.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Baptists do not use creeds or confessions. They are a help.

Why?

Because as this site once did, the creed instead of Christ, becomes the measuring stick.

The reason why I took issue with it is because this site once used the creed to "identify" just who was and who wasn't a Christian.

What I am to be measured by is how Christ-like I am. Not how close to the Nicene Creed I have been.

When I get to heaven someday, is God going to ask me just how close to following the Nicene Creed I came, or is He going to look and see if the blood of Christ has been applied to me, and if my name is written in the Lambs book of Life?

Am I a "Christian" because I agree with the Nicene Creed, or am I a "Christian" because I believe that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, live 33 years sinless, died on a cross for my sins, riased on the 3rd day by the power of God for my justification, and now sits on the right hand of the Father waiting for God to tell Him to go get His children?

Don't misunderstand me, the Nicene Creed states many good things, but I will not be "identified" as a Christian as to whether or not I agree with it.

As far as Baptists are concerned, Dr. Jimmy Draper once said:



Ernest Reisinger wrote:



Link

My identification as a Christian is not with a creed or confession. My identity is with Christ, by baptism. (cf. Rom. 6:3-4)

God Bless

Till all are one.

My friend and brother,


Correct me if I'm "off" at any point: As I understand it, the discomfort of SOME Protestants with Creeds is NOT that they disagree with professing our faith (what a creed is, it's simply Latin for "I believe...") since Baptists are as willing to give testimony of their faith as any Christians, and it's often not that they disagree with what the Apostle or Nicene Creed say (although they may not interpret all the sentences exactly as the RCC currently does), rather the "discomfort" is that Creeds should not be regarded as equal to God's Holy Word in authority or normative function.

IF I'm correct about that, then even though I embrace and use the Nicene Creed (as most Protestants do), I wholeheartedly agree that no Creed is norma normans and is not, in any sense, equal to Scripture - but is fully accountable to such. Like any statement of belief, it is under Scripture. It's our "job" to agree with Scripture, not the other way around.


Am I understanding the Baptist view here?
Are we ROUGHLY on the same "page?"




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah






.

 

[Albion]

I do appreciate the question "Handmaiden" asked, but I can't help thinking it's not that big a problem. As several of us replied, most Protestants DO accept--and use--the Creed; and as for those who don't, the opposition is more to there being Creeds that are used (or seen as being used) as litmus tests rather than opposition to the tenets of the Creed itself.

Take away those two groups and you have relatively few Protestants who are "opposed to the Creed."

 

[MrPolo]

Lutherans and Anglicans....are about half of all Protestants.

I didn't know that...do you have a link to a source for this?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Lutherans and Anglicans....are about half of all Protestants.

I didn't know that...do you have a link to a source for this?

According to www.religion-cults.com, there are 75 million Lutherans and 75 million Anglicans in the world. Depending on what groups are or are not regraded as "Protestant" (and this varies), it is regarded that there are between 300 and 400 million Protestants in the world. Thus, Lutherans and Anglicans together - just those two communions - would be 37.5% to 50% of all Protestants. I think my statement of "about half" qualifies - again, it depends in large part on what groups are regarded as "Protestant" and which are not.

That diversion aside, I think our good friend Albion got to the "bottom line:"

I do appreciate the question "Handmaiden" asked, but I can't help thinking it's not that big a problem. As several of us replied, most Protestants DO accept--and use--the Creed; and as for those who don't, the opposition is more to there being Creeds that are used (or seen as being used) as litmus tests rather than opposition to the tenets of the Creed itself.

Take away those two groups and you have relatively few Protestants who are "opposed to the Creed."

 

[namericanboy]

As belonging to a church that has it's roots in the Anabaptist, Albion pretty much hit it.
We acknowledge the creed as part of christian history...I think the most issue is the use of "catholic" and people thinking it's meaning the " Roman catholic" church...peace to you..nab

 

[Albion]

According to www.religion-cults.com, there are 75 million Lutherans and 75 million Anglicans in the world. Depending on what groups are or are not regraded as "Protestant" (and this varies), it is regarded that there are between 300 and 400 million Protestants in the world. Thus, Lutherans and Anglicans together - just those two communions - would be 37.5% to 50% of all Protestants. I think my statement of "about half" qualifies - again, it depends in large part on what groups are regarded as "Protestant" and which are not.

And if I may, there's this--

The 75 million Anglicans in the world are the 75 million members of the Anglican Communion. It is estimated that there are about 110 million Anglicans all told. The others include the Church of England in South Africa, many of the Indian churches, the Reformed Episcopal Church, and the Continuing Anglican churches which have a number of representatives posting here on CF. It may be that the Lutheran figure also excludes those smaller bodies that don't belong to the Lutheran World Federation or some other such standard, but I don't know offhand.

So anyway, 110 million Anglicans plus 75 million Lutherans out of 300 million Protestants would be more than 50%, and it's close to 50% if we take the higher number of 400 million Protestants.

 

[seashale76]

According to www.religion-cults.com, there are 75 million Lutherans and 75 million Anglicans in the world. Depending on what groups are or are not regraded as "Protestant" (and this varies), it is regarded that there are between 300 and 400 million Protestants in the world. Thus, Lutherans and Anglicans together - just those two communions - would be 37.5% to 50% of all Protestants. I think my statement of "about half" qualifies - again, it depends in large part on what groups are regarded as "Protestant" and which are not.

Interesting stats- the question really is, who is Protestant? There was a thread around here that was trying to hash it out. I was raised as an Evangelical Pentecostal, was later a Southern Baptist, and then went to an independent Christian church (related to the Campbellite movement). I used to consider myself Protestant (in the sense that I was anti-Catholic) but I didn't adhere to any creed. No creed but Christ and all that.

Some self-identify as Protestants, some don't, but it can and does seem like these anti-creed folks are the majority in certain areas of the U.S. I guess it depends on where you are.

 

[DeaconDean]

deleted to keep the peace

 

[seashale76]

Since I have come under fire for standing up for my Baptist beliefs, and the concept of "God-breathed" scriptures, I shall delete my previous remarks, and after a little while, I shall erase this one too.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I don't think you're coming under fire, at least, I didn't read that into anyone's comments here. I think people are attempting to understand and asking for clarification.

 

[DeaconDean]

deleted