Nicene Creed -- what's yer beef?

[Rhamiel]

wineskin makes a good point, the word "catholic" is not used a lot in english to mean universal, why not just translate it into the far more common word "universal" well I know why the Catholics keep it catholic, but for non-Catholic Western Christians (sometimes called Protestants lol) why do they keep the term catholic in the creed?

 

[Albion]

wineskin makes a good point, the word "catholic" is not used a lot in english to mean universal, why not just translate it into the far more common word "universal" well I know why the Catholics keep it catholic, but for non-Catholic Western Christians (sometimes called Protestants lol) why do they keep the term catholic in the creed?

Because it is being used in the religious sense and not for ordinary conversation in which, admittedly, most people would use a synonym. As we know, there are many words we use and understand with regard to our religious usage but that we don't normally use otherwise. Trinity, for one example. It could be used to describe any number of three-way constructs, but we usually don't describe them that way, reserving the word for references to the triune nature of God.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Because it is being used in the religious sense and not for ordinary conversation in which, admittedly, most people would use a synonym. As we know, there are many words we use and understand with regard to our religious usage but that we don't normally use otherwise. Trinity, for one example. It could be used to describe any number of three-way constructs, but we usually don't describe them that way, reserving the word for references to the triune nature of God.

Lutherans typically use the word "catholic" in the Creed.
It's a good word, an ancient and ecumenical word.
We all know it's a adjective meaning "universal" "whole" "general"

Right or wrong, there is a lot of "church" language used by Christians, especially liturgical ones.





.

 

[wayseer]

My problem is with the first word of the Creed - 'I'.

No one has the authority to tell what to think.

 

[Rhamiel]

My problem is with the first word of the Creed - 'I'.

No one has the authority to tell what to think

well if you don't believe it, then don't say the creed.
it is not forcing a belief on you, it is informing you of what the group believes, and then you informing others what you believe
if you don't believe that, then you are in the wrong group.
It is not forcing you to believe anything, the creed just informs you of Christian beliefs, you can decide if you want to be Christian or not

 

[Anglian]

The Nicene Creed represents the consensus of the Faithful about the understanding of the Faith once received and was designed to avoid the heresy of Arius.

The early Church did not consider those who did not subscribe to that Creed as Christians; this Forum has a policy not dissimilar. I missed the parts of Paul's epistles, or John's, or Jude's where they say we can all believe whatever understanding we come to individually.

Verifying the beliefs of the Church by recourse to a book which you only know to be Apostolic by the verdict of the same early Church which decided on the Creed as the test of Orthodoxy is to accept one part of the teaching of that Church and to reject the other.

In my own Church the first word of the Creed is 'We' - we are the body of Christ, and if we do not all believe and confess the same faith, we are not one.

peace,

Anglian

peace,

Anglian

 

[Polycarp1]

My problem is with the first word of the Creed - 'I'.

No one has the authority to tell what to think.

This is a holdover with Anglicanism, and I gather creedal Protestantism in general, from medieval Catholicism, which started using "I" in the Nicene Creed. As Anglian notes, traditionally the Nicene Creed began "We believe in..." as the common statement of faith in God of the whole Church. Modern language versions of the Nicene Creed revert to that usage for public worship -- at least in the Episcopal Church (USA).

The East, AFAIK, never used the Apostles' Creed, but in the West it was traditionally the baptismal statement of faith of the individual, and used "I" in consequence. (This is the reason for the Nicene Creed at the Eucharist, the common meal of the whole Church, and the Apostles' Creed at Baptism and in Morning and Evening Prayer, the individual and monastic daily offices of prayer.)

============

Addressing the point Deacon Dean made before leaving, and with only constructive criticism intended, I think it's very important that neither the Creed (any creed or confession) nor adherence to specific beliefs from the Bible be used to barricade anyone from professing faith in Christ. It seems to be far easier to call someone 'heretic' than 'brother' when we disagree. And that's sad.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

wineskin makes a good point, the word "catholic" is not used a lot in english to mean universal, why not just translate it into the far more common word "universal" well I know why the Catholics keep it catholic, but for non-Catholic Western Christians (sometimes called Protestants lol) why do they keep the term catholic in the creed?

Greetings. I have no idea as I myself never recite the creed

 

[Polycarp1]

"Catholic" meant "universal" or "ecumenical" as in the sense of the Church spread throughout the Empire, in every place holding the same faith in Christ. It was not then, and never intended to be, a specific meaning "in communion with the Bishop of Rome."

Along the same lines, all of us from the Western churches would take umbrage at the idea that we're not orthodox -- even though we're not in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

My own Anglican church came out of the Reformation, as far as being an independent body goes. Do I have to let the Calvinists have exclusive claim to "Reformed"? We're neither fundamentalist nor Lutheran -- but we darn well are "Evangelical." And we''re "orthodox" and "catholic" in the same sense -- they're adjectives that have been coopted by denominations for their own private uses that used to mean something quite different.

 

[Rhamiel]

polycarp

My own Anglican church came out of the Reformation, as far as being an independent body goes. Do I have to let the Calvinists have exclusive claim to "Reformed"? We're neither fundamentalist nor Lutheran -- but we darn well are "Evangelical." And we''re "orthodox" and "catholic" in the same sense -- they're adjectives that have been coopted by denominations for their own private uses that used to mean something quite different.

I am just a
catholic, orthodox ,reformed, evanglical, bible believeing Christian
if that aint a mouth full I don't know what is

 

[namericanboy]

polycarp
I am just a
catholic, orthodox ,reformed, evanglical, bible believeing Christian
if that aint a mouth full I don't know what is

Hey, so am I ..That makes us brothers in Christ!

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought the Anglican Church/Episcopalian Church recited the Nicene Creed?

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

You know that isn't true . If it were , you wouldn't have mentioned it meaning "universal" in the OP .

I included it in the OP because I was addressing an audience that normally does not recite the Creed.

Why is there such anger in your tone? I am not judging anyone, just trying to understand where others are coming from, and provide clarification for any confusion there may be surrounding the Creed. By saying "you know that isn't true," you make it sound like I am trying to spread vicous lies or something.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Nicene Creed -- what's yer beef?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug75diEyiA0

 

[wayseer]

... the creed just informs you of Christian beliefs, you can decide if you want to be Christian or not

And therein lies the issue. The Church decides who is in and who is out. No authority was given to the Church to assume this power - men controlling how one is to think.

Jesus, as far as I read him, was against such power. Probably Jesus would not have been a Christian.

 

[NorrinRadd]

...

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?

I was raised in a nominal (i.e. non-practicing) Lutheran household, but I consider I actually became a Christian when I was "born again" in early 1980, in my second year at college. I have attended only non-credal, non-liturgical churches (CMA, IAOGI, Calvary Chapel). All of those groups -- and I would say especially the latter two, one being Pentecostal and the other Charismatic -- are suspicious of formality, ritual, and "tradition." I don't recall any particular preaching "against" the Creeds, but they were certainly never recited. I'm really not sure how many years it was before I even heard the WORD, "creed" in this theological sense. The Pentecostal church definitely looked somewhat askance at "mainline" churches that were "dead" because of their formalism and "traditions of men."

Now, personally, I am what some, like NT scholar Craig Keener, have termed a "Biblicist." I have trouble "pledging alegience" as it were to Creeds and doctrines that may agree with SOME parts of Scripture, while running counter to others. In specific regard to the NC:

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.

I concur.

Further, it is possible to find multiple NT passages that refer to believers as "born" or "begotten" of God -- making it problematic for me to wholeheartedly affirm the NC.

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. ...

Agree, to a point.

My problem with the NC is that it implies the "eternally begotten" doctrine. Whether we look at it that way, or as actually phrased in the NC, it runs counter to the several NT passages that state that the Son was "begotten" on a specific "today," NOT in the eternal or distant past. In my mind, the only way I can affirm the NC is by assuming (pretending?) that its phrasing is analogous to the verse in the Revelation that talks about the Lamb "slain from the foundation of the world."

 

[DeaconDean]

deleted

 

[Anglian]

Dear DeaconDean,

The Nicene Creed came into existence because some held to faith in a Jesus who was only a divinely inspired man; those who believe that do not believe what the Christian Church decided was necessary for believing in the Christ who saves us. Anyone can say 'Lord', but not all who say it will be accepted by Him.

The Nicene Creed is the way that the early Christian Church protected the traditions which it had received (including which books should be included in the NT as Apostolic) from those who claimed that it was possible to accept a Christ who was a creature as your saviour.

Anyone can claim anything they like when they say they have accepted Jesus. The Christian Church in 325 accepted this was not so. Most Christian Churches accept this. Those which do not are not orthodox Christians and their faith is not catholic, in that what they hold has not been held for always by Christians of every nation and culture. What they are holding is a western European variant of fairly recent origin. Dos that make them wrong? That is known only to God, and not mine to say. But by the historic standard of orthodoxy and catholicity, it makes them unorthodox and local, which is fair enough, but not a good standpoint from which to criticise the vast majority of Christians today and in the past who have accepted the standard of orthodoxy as they also accept the canon of Scripture recognised by the same Church.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Albion]

I believe a number of things. I believe that there is a fallen angel named Lucifer, Satan. Is that my creed?

It would be part of your creed, sure. I don't think the idea was that non-religious facts were what we are talking about with "creed," but Lucifer is part of the Judeo-Christian system of belief, so sure.

According to your standard, if I say I believe anything, even the rediculous, that becomes my "creed."

Josiah, When I was baptized into the Baptist church, was I asked to recite the Nicene Creed as part of the requirment to membership in the Baptist church?

NO!

When I was baptized into the Baptist church,

Well, actually, you were NOT "baptized into the Baptist church." You were baptized into the church of God, i.e. the discipleship of Christ, not into any particular denomination, even though one of them administered the ordinance. However, we know what you mean; everyone talks that way.

I'm saying this mainly because we can see how the use of words trips us all up at times, even when we are basically not in that much disagreement.

For him to say you have a creed seems fair since you have a set of religious convictions, but I appreciate the point also that being pushed to affirm someone else's draft of a set of Christian beliefs (as the Nicene Creed is, like it or not) is a quite different matter. But it all falls under "accepting Creeds" when we talk about this subject.

 

[Albion]

The Nicene Creed is the way that the early Christian Church protected the traditions which it had received (including which books should be included in the NT as Apostolic) from those who claimed that it was possible to accept a Christ who was a creature as your saviour.

Anyone can claim anything they like when they say they have accepted Jesus. The Christian Church in 325 accepted this was not so. Most Christian Churches accept this. Those which do not are not orthodox Christians and their faith is not catholic, in that what they hold has not been held for always by Christians of every nation and culture. What they are holding is a western European variant of fairly recent origin.

And how does this differ from a church (yours for the sake of illustration) that does not accept four of the Ecumenical Councils that all the other orthodox churches claim--using the same wording you did here--represent the standard of orthodoxy and catholicity? There is no common acceptance of what is Apostolic or has always been believed, and certainly not by "Christians of every nation and culture!"

"Orthodoxy," as a result, is only something in the beholder's eye (and what any church body decides to call itself)...just like heresy. That's why we read on these threads disclaimers like "Our Orthodox churches aren't the same as those Orthodox churches because we believe/teach/practice it differently from them."