Nicene Creed -- what's yer beef?

[CaliforniaJosiah]

FreeOnlineDictionary:

1. A formal statement of religious belief; a confession of faith.




Answers.com

1. A formal statement of religious belief; a confession of faith.



YourDictionary.com

1. a brief statement of belief; confession of faith
2. a specific statement of this kind
3. any set of beliefs

Everything2

Creed (kr?d), n. [OE. credo, crede, AS. creda, fr. L. credo I believe, fr. credere to believe; akin to OIr. cretin I believe, and Skr. raddadhmi; crat trust + dh to put.

1. A summary of what is believed






College Edition Webster's New World Dictionary of the English Language ( Word c. 2001)


1. A statement of what is believed.

2. A statement of belief, principles, or opinions on any subject.






Again, a creed is a statement of what is believed.

It comes from that Latin, credo, meaning "I believe."



That's how the term is defined in theology.




Again, is your "issue" that you are against any person or organization saying what it believes, OR (I'm just guessing) is the "issue" that such not be regarded as norma normans (as no Protestant denomination does)?





















.

 

[Thekla]

Hmmm. Then you are also unable to detemine if several thousand Protestant denominations are or are not Orthodox. Somehow, I don't feel that that is a candid answer. After all, you know that the OO don't accept the 4th, 5th, 6th, or 7th Ecumenical Council--it's common knowledge even if Anglian had not advised us of this many times. Do Eastern Orthodox Christians not have any opinion on the Ecumenical Councils or consider it relevant to true doctrine?

I thought you asked me personally, hence a personal response. The ECs express true doctrine - can someone "rightly worship/believe" true doctrine without expressing it as a Council ? I don't see why not. For example, although the OO doesn't "accept" the 7th EC, they still use icons. I am not familiar enough with the OO to comment further, though.

In an Ekklesial sense, yes the EO and OO are not in communion and are in talks per the language that divides us.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Albion,

So that's your answer--Orthodoxy is defined by worshipping according to a certain liturgy ... and all the talk about Sacred Tradition, Apostles this or that, the Ecumenical Councils, etc. is just talk. All of that is what you've called not 'essential.'

Interesting.

Let me explain.

For us the Liturgy is the expression of our theology and our belief. Everything that we believe is expressed at some point in our Liturgy. So yes, we can tell by participating in the Liturgy whether those using it are Orthodox. We don't need theological texts or other tests; it is all in the Liturgy. But then our Liturgy is either that of St. James, or St. John Chrysostom or St. Basil, and what they wrote into the Liturgies was the full expression of our belief.

Everything that is in the Councils we receive as the teaching of the Apostles is there in the Liturgy.

funny thing, though, you and she and every other Orthodox Christian on these forums of whatever church calling itself Orthodox judges, day after day, the rest of us Christians, insisting that we do not have the fullness of the faith.

I have made no such judgement, not does my Church. We say we know that we have the fullness of the faith; we cannot know who else has, though we can know, thanks to the Creed, where we can locate heresy.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Albion]

Dear Albion,
[/color][/b]

For us the Liturgy is the expression of our theology and our belief.

And so it is also with us Anglican Orthodox Christians. And I agree that the liturgy does summarize or incorporate much of what the faith is. I just question if it's accurate to think that this is all there is to judge by.

Everything that we believe is expressed at some point in our Liturgy.

I have to disagree with you there. Most perhaps, not everything, and I'm not confining my reply to any particular church's liturgy as you also were careful not to do.

But for the sake of the discussion, you are saying, therefore, that what the 4th through 7th Ecumenical Councils decreed is present in both the EO and OO liturgies -- yet at the same time you found no difference between the EO and OO liturgies. How can that be?

 

[Albion]

I thought you asked me personally, hence a personal response.

I did ask you personally, but I know you to be a well-informed Eastern Orthodox Christian and also that you are aware that most of the Ecumenical Councils (often referred to by EO people as critical to a true belief system) is NOT accepted by the OO. You have that.

The ECs express true doctrine - can someone "rightly worship/believe" true doctrine without expressing it as a Council ? I don't see why not. For example, although the OO doesn't "accept" the 7th EC, they still use icons. I am not familiar enough with the OO to comment further, though.

Then there's no telling how many churches are Orthodox, and that's fine. My church uses icons too. I can appreciate your point, but it's not as though the OO (and others) are neutral or haven't taken a stand on these Councils. They REJECT them.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Albion,

A Liturgy which takes two and a half hours to complete is quite capable of containing all that the people need by way of theological education. Indeed, we should remember that whilst the first purpose of all worship is to thank God for His Infinite Goodness to us, the second has been the public instruction of the people. Our own catechetical process is modelled on that of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, whose remodelling of the St. James Liturgy is the basis for the form of that Liturgy we use every Sunday.

But for the sake of the discussion, you are saying, therefore, that what the 4th through 7th Ecumenical Councils decreed is present in both the EO and OO liturgies -- yet at the same time you found no difference between the EO and OO liturgies. How can that be?

The Coptic Church usually uses the St. Basil or the St. John Chrysostom - the same form. Nothing that occurred in the councils they (and you) receive as numbers 4 through 7 changed the Liturgy. One reason many of us remain convinced that the differences between us now owe more to their historical persistence than to the reason which gives rise to them is this precise fact. What we worship is what we believe. We use the same Liturgy; from that, some of us draw the obvious conclusion.

But we know that a split which has lasted so long is not to be healed even in a century or so, and we have had only about 50 years of real talks.

Indeed, when one examines how the Catholics defend what some of us think of as additions, it can be seen that they could, indeed, be developments in the understanding of the Faith once received. But decisions on that are above my paygrade. I find much that edifies in Catholic writing, as I have in Anglican writing, and as I do in what you, Rick and others here help me to learn.

The Nicene Creed unites us all in defining orthodox belief. Indeed, I recall once having an Anglican booklet which set against each line of the Creed an appropriate Scriptural citation. One of the great things about the Reformed Churches is, like my own, they have always placed great emphasis on the laity knowing Scripture. The Catholic Church now does likewise.

He will bring us together one day; but He does have some stiff-necked and wilful children to deal with. I do find the fact that Christ died for us awesome, in the proper and literal meaning of that word. If we needed proof of God's infinite love we can find it in the mirror; He loves me

peace,

Anglian

 

[Thekla]

Then there's no telling how many churches are Orthodox, and that's fine. My church uses icons too. I can appreciate your point, but it's not as though the OO (and others) are neutral or haven't taken a stand on these Councils. They REJECT them.

It is my impression that they did not attend the later Councils; in that sense, those Councils cannot have been actually rejected. So, as in the example of the 7th, the OO utilizes icons - although the OO was absent at the 7th (and 6th, iirc) Council/s.

Does the OO utilize icons, understand icons in the same way as expressed in the relevant Council ? I do not know. IIRC, your Church accepts the 7th Council - but I also do not know the way the Anglicans utilize/understand icons, so I can't comment there either.

 

[Albion]

It is my impression that they did not attend the later Councils; in that sense, those Councils cannot have been actually rejected.

In that sense, they aren't even ecumenical councils at all. But they did reject them and continue to reject them formally.

So, as in the example of the 7th, the OO utilizes icons - although the OO was absent at the 7th (and 6th, iirc) Council/s.

So I think you're saying that it's Orthodox to reject an Ecumenical Council, i.e. hold that it was NOT led to its conclusions by the Holy Spirit. That would mean that it is just a human document and not essential, also that it is possible to accept parts of an EC without an obligation to accept all of it. Most Protestants are in the same exact position as the various churches called Orthodox by that POV.

Does the OO utilize icons, understand icons in the same way as expressed in the relevant Council ? I do not know. IIRC, your Church accepts the 7th Council - but I also do not know the way the Anglicans utilize/understand icons, so I can't comment there either.

I understand, and you did make the point that unless you have had involvment with a church and/or worshipped there, you are reluctant to judge. Anglicans do use icons, however, if there is any doubt about it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLOJ says "NO CREED BUT CHRIST"

Luke 16:19 A-Man, yet any, was Rich and in-slipped/enedidusketo <1737> (5710) purple/porfuran <4209> and fine-linen/busson <1040> making-merry down to a-day, splendidly/lamprwV <2988> .

Revelation 18:12 cargo of gold and of silver and of stone [*stones], precious and of pearl and of fine-linen/bussou <1040> and of purple/porfuraV <4209> and of silk and of scarlet and every wood citron.....................
14 And the fruition [*of thee] of the desire of the soul of thee departed from thee. And all the sumptious-things and shinings/lampra <2986> perished from thee. And not still not no shall be finding them.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7306890&page=3
Rich-man and Lazarus True story or Parable

 

[Anglian]

Dear Albion,

We do not receive the councils after 431, but we have not rejected them. Indeed, apart from Chalcedon, one part of which we did reject, we were not invited to any others, so we regard them with interest, but as purely local affairs. Icons are a good example. We had no iconoclasm, so no need for Councils to deal with a non-existent problem. We rejected the writings of Ibas and others at Chalcedon and welcome the fact that, at a later Council, the Chalcedonians came round to that point of view.

Reading through, as one does from time to time, the councils regarded as Ecumenical by the Chalcedonians, I can't find anything there we reject. The issue on which we divided at Chalcedon does, indeed, appear to be a misunderstanding aggravated by linguistic and cultural differences and the ambitions of men. Some, better qualified than I, agree; others, also better qualified than myself tell me I am incorrect. We will see where our bishops get to.

But, as I say, I see nothing in what the EO hold that we would not see as Orthodox. Indeed, it seems perfectly possible that the Catholics may well be correct in telling us that what we regard as 'additions' are, in fact, developed understandings of what we hold. After all, we've not done a great deal of theological rethinking since about 613 AD; the Arabs kind of discourage it.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Albion]

Dear Albion,

A Liturgy which takes two and a half hours to complete is quite capable of containing all that the people need by way of theological education.

All that they need? We were talking about all that is the faith. Anyway, the length of the service doesn't guarantee anything.

The Coptic Church usually uses the St. Basil or the St. John Chrysostom - the same form. Nothing that occurred in the councils they (and you) receive as numbers 4 through 7 changed the Liturgy. One reason many of us remain convinced that the differences between us now owe more to their historical persistence than to the reason which gives rise to them is this precise fact. What we worship is what we believe. We use the same Liturgy; from that, some of us draw the obvious conclusion.

...either the findings of the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th councils are included in both liturgies or they are not. Obviously they are not. But if it doesn't matter to an understanding of Orthodoxy, it doesn't.

But we know that a split which has lasted so long is not to be healed even in a century or so, and we have had only about 50 years of real talks.

Sure. Similar talks are going on between numerous other churches. They usually don't posit that there are not significant differences between them when sitting down to try to settle the significant differences between them.

Indeed, when one examines how the Catholics defend what some of us think of as additions, it can be seen that they could, indeed, be developments in the understanding of the Faith once received. But decisions on that are above my paygrade. I find much that edifies in Catholic writing, as I have in Anglican writing, and as I do in what you, Rick and others here help me to learn.

The Nicene Creed unites us all in defining orthodox belief.

But you're not saying that the Nicene Creed defines what is Orthodoxy, I take it. the NC teaches mainly the nature of God and allows for many variations on other matters that have resulted in the various churches decreeing that others who accept the Creed are heretical, heterodox, and so on.

Indeed, I recall once having an Anglican booklet which set against each line of the Creed an appropriate Scriptural citation. One of the great things about the Reformed Churches is, like my own, they have always placed great emphasis on the laity knowing Scripture. The Catholic Church now does likewise.

He will bring us together one day; but He does have some stiff-necked and wilful children to deal with. I do find the fact that Christ died for us awesome, in the proper and literal meaning of that word. If we needed proof of God's infinite love we can find it in the mirror; He loves me

Which strikes a responsive chord in me. As I've noted before, a lot of heat goes into saying that so and so is Orthodox or a heretic or doesn't have the fullness of the faith or is Catholic or non-Catholic, etc. when all of this is just "in the eye of the beholder."

What is Orthodox, what is Sacred Tradition, what is the fullness of the faith, is no more "set" and identifiable than the correct interpretation of the written Word of God. To me that shows us that nothing should distract us from the Word of God which is complete, useful for all our teaching, and reliable...save only that we have to understand it properly.

 

[Thekla]

In that sense, they aren't even ecumenical councils at all. But they did reject them and continue to reject them formally.

The EO and OO were not in communion at the time of those Councils - that does not render the Councils in question non-ecumenical.

So I think you're saying that it's Orthodox to reject an Ecumenical Council, i.e. hold that it was NOT led to its conclusions by the Holy Spirit. That would mean that it is just a human document and not essential, also that it is possible to accept parts of an EC without an obligation to accept all of it. Most Protestants are in the same exact position as the various churches called Orthodox by that POV.

I don't recall saying that. I stated that I think its possible to hold right-belief/worship without also expressing that belief as an Ecumenical Council.

I understand, and you did make the point that unless you have had involvment with a church and/or worshipped there, you are reluctant to judge. Anglicans do use icons, however, if there is any doubt about it.

Thank-you; I have not attended an Anglican Church. In fact, my knowledge of the Anglican worship and theology is about equal to my knowledge about the OO -- very little I'm afraid.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Dean, with this post you have just done what you have been railing against. You have claimed that you have the bible while some do not. You have claimed that you have God and others don't.

Can't you see the problem with that?

You quote this passage:

For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." -Rom. 10:9-10 (KJV)

And I answer that the Nicene Creed IS my confession. It is my confession of beliefs. The Nicene Creed does not make me a Christian, but the confession that Jesus died on the cross for my lost soul is what makes me a Christian. The Nicene Creed took my beliefs and summarized them. The Nicene Creed is from scriptures. It is basically the word of God condensed and outlined.

Some some creed made by men is the universal accepted appeal?




Evidently it does. Becuase if I don't subscribe to it, adhere to it, confess it, make use of it, I'm not "orthodox." And by that, I mean that don't believe the same things the early Christians did.



And God's word the Bible can't do that, only the Nicene Creed can do that?

Yea, right.



As I stated how many times before, what I critize is the use of it as an identifier of who is and who isn't to be considered a Christian! What I critize is the use of it as a determining factor for church membership!



Well I can! My Bible tells me so!

I beleive in Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God!

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." -Rom. 10:9-10 (KJV)

I AM SAVED! I AM SAVED BY THE GRACE OF GOD, I AM SAVED!

And not only that but I have assurance of it:

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."—1 John 5:13 (KJV)

"For I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day." -2 Tim. 1:12 (KJV)

"Beloved, now are we the sons of God...." -I John 3:2 (KJV)

I can stand in church and sing loudly, proudly, and with full assurance:



Words by: Fanny Crosby, 1883, Music by: Phoebe P. Knapp

I am truely saddened that you cannot say this.



Therein lies the difference. You have the creed, and I have the "God-Breathed" word.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Thank-you; I have not attended an Anglican Church. In fact, my knowledge of the Anglican worship and theology is about equal to my knowledge about the OO -- very little I'm afraid.

Greetings Thekla! That is one good thing about threads like these is to learn about why different sects/denominations hold the views/traditions they hold.
I hope one day ALL of them will one day UNITE under one Banner and one Faith.

Isaiah 11:12 And He lifts-up a Banner/Ensign for Nations, and He gathers ones being outcasts of Yisra'el, and ones being shattered of Y@huwdah He is convening from four wings/corners of the Land.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

And I answer that the Nicene Creed IS my confession. It is my confession of beliefs. The Nicene Creed does not make me a Christian, but the confession that Jesus died on the cross for my lost soul is what makes me a Christian. The Nicene Creed took my beliefs and summarized them. The Nicene Creed is from scriptures. It is basically the word of God condensed and outlined.

That is the Main profession of the Creed in my view........

John 19:30 When then the Jesus had received/got the vinegar He said "It has been finished!/tetelestai <5055> (5769)" And reclining the head He gives-up the spirit.

Reve 1:18 and the living One! And I became dead and behold! I am living into the Ages of the Ages and I am having the Keys of the Hades and of the Death

 

[Polycarp1]

I believe in my wife. I know she loves me, and has stood beside me through thick and thin, good times and bad, relative riches and poverty, since we first met* in 1959. I believe in the man I call son. I know that since we first encountered each other, him a 16-year-old runaway and me a 42-year-old childless man, we have been for each other what a son and father should be, and the best of friends to boot. I know he will help me with things I can no longer do physically to keep up our home, and that because he loves us.

Those are statements of trust and certitude.

I believe in God. I put my full hope and trust in Him. I trust in his lovingkindness and grace towards me, even though I don't deserve it.

Someone might say, "But who IS your wife? What's her name; what's her social security number? How can we know what woman you mean by 'your wife'?" Or "But you said you have no children of your loins; how then is he your son? What's his name, his identity?" Those are legitimate questions, aimed at clarifying who it is that I mean when I speak of my wife or my son.

Likewise the purpose of the creed is to answer those questions -- who is this 'God' in whom you believe? Is He the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Is He the God and Father of Jesus Christ? Is He the Almighty and Merciful of whom Mohammed spoke? Is He the Resurrected Personage of whom Joseph Smith Jr. wrote? And so on. The Creed spells out in detail who this God in whom I believe is.

But it is first and foremost a statement of faith, of trust, in Him.

I do not believe in the Bible. The Bible is the precious record of God's dealings with man, written by men moved by the Holy Spirit, the foundational document of Christianity. But the Bible, by itself, has no power to save me. It did not create the world or lay down the law. It was not born in a manger, did not hang in agony and die on a Cross, did not rise from the dead, did not come to strengthen, comfort, and sanctify the believer in his inmost heart. I cherish the Bible, and study it. I do not put my faith or trust in it.

Likewise the Virgin Mary. She was and is a wonderful woman, full of grace, willing to bear obloquy that God's will might be fulfilled through her. Unlike every other human being, she bore within herself God Himself in the form of the unborn Baby Jesus. She deserves my respect, my honoring of her, my thanks. But she did not save me; her acts in salvation were those of one of God's servants, worthy of emulation but not of worship.

For me, the issue of belief=faith=trust is key. Intellectual definition of who one believes/has faith/puts one's trust in, that is significant but secondary.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

For me, the issue of belief=faith=trust is key. Intellectual definition of who one believes/has faith/puts one's trust in, that is significant but secondary

Greetings Polycarp! Btw, I like your Siggy......

"It is written, 'My house shall be a house of prayer,' but you have made it a den of thieves." -Jesus

Matthew 21:13 And He is saying unto them, "It has been written 'My House a House of prayer shall be being called' ye yet it are making a den/cave/sphlaion <4693> of robbers." [Jeremiah 7:11]

Reve 6:15 And the kings of the land and the greatest and the thousand-chiefs/chief-of-thousands and the rich ones and the strong ones and every bond-servant and free man hide selves into the caves/dens/sphlaia <4693> and into the rocks of the mountains.

 

[Anglian]

[/color][/size][/font]
All that they need? We were talking about all that is the faith. Anyway, the length of the service doesn't guarantee anything.

It gives us enough space to have a Liturgy which teaches the faithful what it is we mean when we confess Christ as Savour; it gives us enough time to read whole chapters from the Scripture; it gives us enough time to come together as a family. I'm sure it is so elsewhere too.

But you're not saying that the Nicene Creed defines what is Orthodoxy, I take it. the NC teaches mainly the nature of God and allows for many variations on other matters that have resulted in the various churches decreeing that others who accept the Creed are heretical, heterodox, and so on.

The NC gives us what the Church regarded as the statement of essentials. If we can agree on that we may find, one day, we are not as far apart as we have sometimes thought.

nothing should distract us from the Word of God which is complete, useful for all our teaching, and reliable...save only that we have to understand it properly.

Indeed, and we are fortunate in having other parts of Tradition to help when we are puzzled and perplexed. Like you, I find little profit in claiming what it is others have or hold; it is enough, as my bishops tells us, to know what we hold, obey and love God and each other; if we do that in Faith, it will keep us busy - and on the right path.

peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It gives us enough space to have a Liturgy which teaches the faithful what it is we mean when we confess Christ as Savour; it gives us enough time to read whole chapters from the Scripture; it gives us enough time to come together as a family. I'm sure it is so elsewhere too.

Greetings Anglian. Doesn't is amaze you and others how translations of the Bible vary so much that when a Pastor/Priest reads from it during a Service, if he is reading from one translation and the laity is look at a different bible, they have to wonder why theirs is different from the pastor/priest. Could that also be causing some problems within Christianity?
Notice the difference between these 2 words "thief and robber" for example:

Matthew 21:13 And He is saying unto them "It has been written 'My House a House of prayer shall be being called ye yet it are making a den/cave of robbers/lhstwn <3027> .'" [Jeremiah 7:11/Daniel 11:14]

Reve 16:15 Behold! I am coming as a thief/klepthV <2812>. Happy is the one-watching and keeping the garments of him, that no naked he may be about-walking and they may be observing the indecency of him

 

[Anglian]

Dear LLOJ,

An interesting point. The Copts in Egypt use an Arabic version of the Bible. Here in the UK we use the NKJV.

peace,

Anglian