Nicene Creed -- what's yer beef?

[Anglian]

[/color][/size][/font]

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 working 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.

Dear Albion,

I'm not sure we need be so gloomy.

The last Council which all Christians accepted was that of 431 in Ephesus, therefore there are Three Ecumenical Councils, if, by the adjective we mean accepted universally.

This is the 'common acceptance' of what is orthodox and catholic.

Beyond that there lie a series of Councils which have never been accepted by all Christians, but which may offer guidance and help even to those whose Churches have not accepted their conclusions.

peace,

Anglian

 

[DeaconDean]

deleted

 

[Albion]

Dear Albion,

I'm not sure we need be so gloomy.

I'm not feeling particularly gloomy today, Anglian. Are you?

The last Council which all Christians accepted was that of 431 in Ephesus, therefore there are Three Ecumenical Councils, if, by the adjective we mean accepted universally.

Not according to those that accept seven.

They say that they are orthodox and those who don't accept all that they do are dissenters, not unlike the Protestants of later times. And then some of those come along and say "We are not like those Protestants, recent Western Christian dissenters because they don't accept the parts we accepted while we were rejecting parts of what the 'other orthodox' Christians were accepting."

If having the whole Christian world accept a certain Creed or Council decision is what is truly "Orthodox," then the FIRST COUNCIL is not to be received either since it was not accepted by...all those who didn't accept it.

But as we know, they are not accounted for when we talk of "everyone," "everywhere" or "all" since, after all, the rest of the churches have stopped counting them. That makes those whom they agree to count in perfect agreement, orthodox.

You remember reading "Animal Farm" I'm sure. Everyone is equal (or can we substitute here "orthodox"?) except that some that are orthodox are unorthodox, that's all.

 

[Anglian]

Dear DeaconDean,

The earliest surviving codices of the NY contain in them books not in the NT you and I both receive; why do you receive that text and not the oldest surviving ones? Where in the NT does it describe what should be in the canon? That canon was accepted by the same Council which accepted the Nicene Creed. It only defined both these things because heretics were saying that some books were Apostolic which were ot, and that some ideas were Christian which were not. If one is happy to accept the book the Church recognised as containing the deposit of Apostolic writing, why reject its view of what represented the credal basis of the Faith 'once received'?

Of course the Church preferred not to define a base line of orthodoxy, that is why the men and women who received the faith needed no Creed; they had the blessed St. Paul who could write admonishing them when they erred. But once the Holy Apostles were in repose, it became more difficult to preserve the faith they had passed on because the gnostics and other claimed secret revelation. The Nicene Creed is the guard against gnosticism and other heretical beliefs; whether you accept it or not, that has been its historic function.

You are not a 'heathen' in my eyes; you are a child of God like the rest of us. There are many in the Church whom God will not receive, and many whom He will receive who are not in the Church. But when we have, from antiquity this safeguard against error, it seems wise and humble to use it rather than one's own sinful intellectual judgement.

peace,

Anglian

 

[DeaconDean]

deleted

 

[Thekla]

Again, that may have been the case in the past, but why should it be the standard today???????????????????????????????

Like I said, evidently, my confession isn't enough, I must adhere to, submit to, recite some creed to be accepted as, identified as, a Christian.

That I cannot, and I will not accept.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Respectfully submitted: the heresies that the NC stood against are still active today.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Albion,

Not at all gloomy, quite cheered-up in fact.

If having the whole Christian world accept a certain Creed or Council decision is what is truly "Orthodox," then the FIRST COUNCIL is not to be received either since it was not accepted by...all those who didn't accept it.

True, but those who did not accept it have not survived as a Church, indeed even as early as Ephesus there were none who chose to challenge Nicaea. It is not the initial acceptance, as you know, which makes a Council Ecumenical, it is its eventual reception by the Faithful. By that standard the first two Councils are Ecumenical. Our brothers and sisters in what was called the Church of the East do not receive Ephesus, but as far as I know are the only one of the ancient Churches which do not.

So I do think there is a commonly accepted standard for orthodoxy which is not relativistic - Nicaea.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

Again, that may have been the case in the past, but why should it be the standard today???????????????????????????????

Like I said, evidently, my confession isn't enough, I must adhere to, submit to, recite some creed to be accepted as, identified as, a Christian.

That I cannot, and I will not accept.

God Bless

Till all are one.

DearDeaconDean,

Why change what has been the great safeguard against heresy? Do you suppose there are none who now believe as Arius did?

If someone said they were a Christian and confessed Christ, but by that they meant (as some do) that he was a very good man and a great teacher who was inspired of God, would that person be a Christian? By the standard of orthodoxy set at Nicaea, no. What standard would you use, or do you think it possible to be a Christian and deny the divinity of Christ?

peace,

Anglian

 

[Albion]

True, but those who did not accept it have not survived as a Church

They certainly have. A number of them post on forums like this all the time and the Jehovah's Witnesses--one such church--is considered to be one of the fastest growing denominations in the world. And then too, Arianism did not just roll over and die when Nicaea acted. It survived for many generations, only gradually fading. It was, as you know, more popular than what we call orthodoxy for some time after Nicaea. I have to give credit to Thekla on that matter, in that she beat me to the reply by about fifteen minutes: "Respectfully submitted: the heresies that the NC stood against are still active today."

It is not the initial acceptance, as you know, which makes a Council Ecumenical, it is its eventual reception by the Faithful. By that standard the first two Councils are Ecumenical. Our brothers and sisters in what was called the Church of the East do not receive Ephesus, but as far as I know are the only one of the ancient Churches which do not.

Then the Eastern Orthodox are the unorthodox Orthodox Christians, and you should stop referring to them as Orthodox since only the Oriental Orthodox are the Orthodox who are orthodox, right? I mean, there can't be any gray area when speaking of Orthodoxy or preganancy, isn't that so?

 

[Anglian]

[/color][/size][/font]
They certainly have. A number of them post on forums like this all the time and the Jehovah's Witnesses--one such church--is considered to be one of the fastest growing denominations in the world. And then too, Arianism did not just roll over and die when Nicaea acted. It survived for many generations, only gradually fading. It was, as you know, more popular than what we call orthodoxy for some time after Nicaea.

No the Arian heresy may have rekindled itself, but the JWs have no traceable lineage to the Arians, even though their ideas are derived from the same unorthodox belief. It is precisely because, at times, unorthodoxy was so popular, that we need a basic yardstick - the Church provided Nicaea. It serves now as it did then, which was my point to our friend DeaconDean.

Then the Eastern Orthodox are the unorthodox Orthodox Christians, and you should stop referring to them as Orthodox since only the Oriental Orthodox are the Orthodox who are orthodox, right? I mean, there can't be any gray area when speaking of Orthodoxy or preganancy, isn't that so?

A very Western way of writing about these things. There is plenty of room for grey - in matters not essential for our salvation. As you know, the Orthodox Church does not go in for definitions except when absolutely essential to avoid heresy; it was on that issue we refused to accept the over-precise definition offered at Chalcedon - it smacked, as it still does, of that Latin need to define and explain what can be neither defined nor explained. One can admire the ingenuity of some of this - Transubstantiation was, for its time, a very clever and advanced way of thinking about the Real presence; now, to many, it is neither.

We prefer to keep the definitions to a minimum, adhering to the Three Councils as the baseline for Orthodoxy; for the rest, we are free to hold what is not heresy - and in place of greyness, many colours are to be found.

peace,

Anglian

 

[DeaconDean]

deleted

 

[DeaconDean]

deleted

 

[Albion]

No the Arian heresy may have rekindled itself, but the JWs have no traceable lineage to the Arians

So...the idea about Ecumenical Councils is not that the church universal or the people accept or reject them, but that the name be the same and the legal incorporation papers in order?

I had had the idea that acceptance of the belief was the test of the Ecumenical Councils. This could be very tricky to track when we are deciding whom to call orthodox.

I

t is precisely because, at times, unorthodoxy was so popular, that we need a basic yardstick - the Church provided Nicaea. It serves now as it did then, which was my point to our friend DeaconDean.

But that's only one theory... "It serves now as it did then." He makes just as strong a case when saying that it may have had a role to play then but not necessarily forever.

A very Western way of writing about these things.

Would you please give that a rest? You're no less a Westerner than the others of us here are.

There is plenty of room for grey - in matters not essential for our salvation.

The look of the liturgy and such practices as praying to saints is essential to salvation, then? These matters and others in that vein are always cited, you know, when what is orthodox is being described.

We prefer to keep the definitions to a minimum, adhering to the Three Councils as the baseline for Orthodoxy; for the rest, we are free to hold what is not heresy - and in place of greyness, many colours are to be found.

What color is assigned to the Protestant Orthodox Christians? Most of us, after all, meet that definition well.

 

[DeaconDean]

deleted

 

[Anglian]

Dear Albion,

I don't think that what I wrote contradicts this:

I had had the idea that acceptance of the belief was the test of the Ecumenical Councils. This could be very tricky to track when we are deciding whom to call orthodox.

What I wrote was that the JW heresy existing now does not mean it has existed continuously or that there is a Church which has maintained that heresy. The Nicene Creed remains to play the role it has always played; when that role is no longer necessary, we shall no longer need it; there's not much sign of that.

By Western I mean the style of theology, which is very different from the Orthodox way of doing theology; it has nothing to do with geographical location. That you could write that there was no room for shades of grey in Orthodoxy revealed a western theological mindset; I had hoped my meaning was clear - I trust it is now.

We can see this mindset in operation here:

The look of the liturgy and such practices as praying to saints is essential to salvation, then? These matters and others in that vein are always cited, you know, when what is orthodox is being described.

You will struggle to find any Orthodox theology which writes in such a vein, even as you will to find any mention of concepts such as validity of orders or licit masses or sola scriptura. I don't say any of these things are right or wrong, they just are not how we do theology.

The Liturgy is the expression of our theology, which is why we do not alter it; it is not its look which matters, but its content. But no Orthodox theologian has ever written that it is essential for our salvation; even as none has denied that the reception of the Eucharistic feast is essential for our continued spiritual health. Neither has any written that appeals to the saints for their prayers are essential for our salvation; nor yet denied the spiritual consolation and benefit which follows this practice.

What matters is the acceptance of Christ, repentance and walking in His way. But by Christ we mean the Second Person of the Trinity as defined at Nicaea - not a very holy man who went about doing good. Those who accept only a creature who did good things do not accept the Christ who brings salvation. How God will deal with them, or with us, is something known only to Him.

The Church has left us a guideline, we follow it because we need guidance. Those who need no guidance can follow their own will.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Thekla]

And a "creed" will prevent them.

Yea, right.

God Bless

Till all are one.

A creed "draws a line" - it will not prevent heresy "springing up", but instructs believers where the limit is that should not be breached ...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

A creed "draws a line" - it will not prevent heresy "springing up", but instructs believers where the limit is that should not be breached ...

Greetings Thekla! What limit would that be?

1 Corinthians 4:6 These-things, yet brothers, I after-figure into myself and Apollos thru/because-of ye, that in us ye may be learning the no above that which hath been Written, that no one over the one ye may be puffed up against the other/different-one.

 

[Anglian]

And what prevents some individual who thinks they are saved, when they aren't, from spouting some creed.

Absolutely nothing, and that is the point of the Nicene Creed. It is not something pronounced by some individual, it is a Creed pronounced and accepted by the same Council that accepted the NT to which we all appeal.

Because they spout the creed that automatically makes them saved?

As I commented, God alone makes this judgement, do not tempt me to the blasphemy of putting myself in His Holy Place.

A year ago, this forum had the Nicene creed in place, and one of the "requirments" to post here was that all posts had to be within the Nicene Creed. Did that solve the problem? Did that keep people from posting?

No, and that is not the purpose of the Creed. It is to provide a standard of orthodox belief. Does it do that? Well, here, and for nearly 1700 years it has done so.

What about the individuals here who now must sport a Christian icon in order to post here, does the Nicene Creed prevent them from carrying one anyway when they are not Christian?

See above. If you expect any Creed to solve the problem of unbelief or heresy you mistake its purpose.

Because one gets up in your churdch and says they are saved and spout some creed, does that automatically mean they are saved?

Nobody in my Church would dream of getting up and saying they are saved. God alone makes that decision.

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." -Mt. 7:22-23 (KJV)

I guess this does not apply to those who sit or stand in the church a recite, adhere, submit to, the Nicene Creed.

I see no reason to suppose any such thing.

God makes the judgement as to which of us is saved. If you think you are, then good for you and I hope you are correct. We hold simply that we have been received into His family and that we are on the long journey which may lead to this blessed result; but I know I am the chief of sinners and I know what I deserve; I await, in fear and trembling, the final judgement, but I trust and hope in Christ who died that all should have life eternal.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Thekla]

Greetings Thekla! What limit would that be?

1 Corinthians 4:6 These-things, yet brothers, I after-figure into myself and Apollos thru/because-of ye, that in us ye may be learning the no above that which hath been Written, that no one over the one ye may be puffed up against the different one.

Hi, LLoJ

Well, as an example, the first line of the creed (below, for convenience) excludes the heresy of the 'demiurge/sub-god' as creator.

 

[DeaconDean]

deleted