Is the Nicene creed supportive of Reformed Theology?

[hopeforhappiness]

"For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven,
was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried"
My denomination in its local expression really dislikes the atonement and I have been wanting to present source documents to preachers to challenge them. (I have even shown them their own official catechism). Most of our preachers would simply find comfort and support for their liberal theology from this section. What they DON'T like is the Father giving His Son in order in anyway to assuage His anger at our rebellion.
I wish this foundational creed was stronger on Jesus dying for our SINS (our rebellion against God)
Is this a problem for the reformed. or can we just say that this creed was put together in response to the attacks on the person of Christ rather than His work?

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

"For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven,
was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried"
My denomination in its local expression really dislikes the atonement and I have been wanting to present source documents to preachers to challenge them. (I have even shown them their own official catechism). Most of our preachers would simply find comfort and support for their liberal theology from this section. What they DON'T like is the Father giving His Son in order in anyway to assuage His anger at our rebellion.
I wish this foundational creed was stronger on Jesus dying for our SINS (our rebellion against God)
Is this a problem for the reformed. or can we just say that this creed was put together in response to the attacks on the person of Christ rather than His work?

The Nicene (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD) Creeds don't really define a particular atonement theory yet. And multiple theories were already in use at that time. The particular atonement theory you mention is 'penal substitution' - it was just of the at least four theories in circulation. But it became the dominant one from the Reformation onward - and even the only one most Protestants know these days. You are right there is a bit of tunnel vision present in Reformed/Calvinist circles at this point.

 

[eleos1954]

"For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven,
was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried"
My denomination in its local expression really dislikes the atonement and I have been wanting to present source documents to preachers to challenge them. (I have even shown them their own official catechism). Most of our preachers would simply find comfort and support for their liberal theology from this section. What they DON'T like is the Father giving His Son in order in anyway to assuage His anger at our rebellion.
I wish this foundational creed was stronger on Jesus dying for our SINS (our rebellion against God)
Is this a problem for the reformed. or can we just say that this creed was put together in response to the attacks on the person of Christ rather than His work?

I just stand on the bible

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

My denomination in its local expression really dislikes the atonement ... What they DON'T like is the Father giving his Son in order in anyway to assuage his anger at our rebellion.

Wait, what? Why?

Most of our preachers ... their liberal theology ...

They are not Reformed, then. Sorry, not sorry. (I am super biased.) They might be Reformed in heritage, but not in substance. As you seem to know, scripture and our confessional standards present penal substitutionary atonement as dogma (e.g., Belgic Confession, art. 21). Reformed theology may also embrace other biblical motifs—victory over death, moral renewal, covenant faithfulness, etc.—but these flow from and through penal substitution. Remove this atonement and the Reformed doctrine of justification collapses, because forensic righteousness requires that sin be legally punished and righteousness legally imputed.

I wish this foundational creed was stronger on Jesus dying for our SINS (our rebellion against God).

To which confessional or creedal standards do they subscribe?

Is this a problem for the Reformed, or can we just say that this creed was put together in response to the attacks on the person of Christ rather than his work?

The Nicene Creed is definitely not a problem for those of the Reformed faith. It is one of the ecumenical symbols that the Reformed churches have always confessed as a faithful summary of biblical and universal orthodoxy (cf. Belgic Confession, art. 9, "we willingly receive the three creeds, of the Apostles, of Nicea, and of Athanasius").

But yes, the Nicene Creed was drafted (325 CE) at the Council of Nicaea to condemn Arianism, which denied Christ's full divinity. It affirmed that the Son is homoousios—of one essence with the Father—preserving the unity of the Godhead and the truth of salvation.

 

[AbbaLove]

It does seem that every Christian denomination (even non-denominational ) has their own understanding (explanation/definition) of "Reformed Theology: from a broad perspective beyond Calvinism

Gets kind of confusing when each explanation believes they have the correct understanding.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

"For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven,
was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried"
My denomination in its local expression really dislikes the atonement and I have been wanting to present source documents to preachers to challenge them. (I have even shown them their own official catechism). Most of our preachers would simply find comfort and support for their liberal theology from this section. What they DON'T like is the Father giving His Son in order in anyway to assuage His anger at our rebellion.
I wish this foundational creed was stronger on Jesus dying for our SINS (our rebellion against God)
Is this a problem for the reformed. or can we just say that this creed was put together in response to the attacks on the person of Christ rather than His work?

The excerpt that you provided seems to be a bit more of a paraphrase than a translation; this is a bit closer to the original language; from Lutheran Service Book:

" who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried."

If it is their liberal theology that is your biggest concern (commendable), I wonder how they would view the Athanasius Creed; let's look at what it says...

35 For as the rational soul and flesh is one
man, so God and man is one Christ,
36 who suffered for our salvation,
descended into hell, rose again the
third day from the dead,
37 ascended into heaven, and is seated at
the right hand of the Father, God
Almighty, from whence He will
come to judge the living and the
dead.
38 At His coming all people will rise again
with their bodies and give an account
concerning their own deeds.
39 And those who have done good will
enter into eternal life, and those who
have done evil into eternal fire.
40 This is the catholic faith; whoever does
not believe it faithfully and firmly
cannot be saved.

I see liberalism as one of the greatest threats the Church is facing; pretty much secular universalism in some of the once steadfast denominations and synods.

All three Creeds are still held by the Catholic Church and the Confessional Lutheran Churches, the liberal Lutherans have excluded the Nicen Creed, and there are lots of "gender neutral" versions in circulation.

Even here at CF the standard for orthodox Christian belief has been the very Biblical Nicene Creed.

Remember that "Jolly old St. Nick" was at the council of Nicea along with Athanasias, and St. Nicholas was expelled for punching the heretic Arius in the mouth; he was readmitted at the recommendation of Athanasias, Arius was forced to confess and recant, which he did, but then reverted back to his heresy.

I love history!

 

[DragonFox91]

They disagree w/ the atonement? That's what Christianity is. What do they teach? It's all just a metaphor?

Welcome to churches disregarding the Bible & their historic creeds. This is reality