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

 

[hopeforhappiness]

Wait, what? Why?



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.



To which confessional or creedal standards do they subscribe?



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.

The denomination I am attending is Wesleyan Methodist. Atonement is part of the official catechism. I am asking my question on this forum as I know that I will get a thought-through reply. But I have been thinking that the Cross is not glorious material for preaching even in most of the evangelical churches that I have attended. It is in the hymns, certainly, but the preaching is only about "growing in Christ".
I have asked for a conversation with a retired evangelical Methodist minister to discuss this.
I have made a preacher on the rota very angry when I pointed out that I hadn't ever heard the gospel in this particular building. He came back with a very angry controlling message the next time. Blessings and curses for our choices but no Christ as solution. Legalism. No salvation. No wonder. No glory. No joy.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The denomination I am attending is Wesleyan Methodist. Atonement is part of the official catechism. I am asking my question on this forum as I know that I will get a thought-through reply. But I have been thinking that the Cross is not glorious material for preaching even in most of the evangelical churches that I have attended. It is in the hymns, certainly, but the preaching is only about "growing in Christ".
I have asked for a conversation with a retired evangelical Methodist minister to discuss this.
I have made a preacher on the rota very angry when I pointed out that I hadn't ever heard the gospel in this particular building. He came back with a very angry controlling message the next time. Blessings and curses for our choices but no Christ as solution. Legalism. No salvation. No wonder. No glory. No joy.

In confessional Lutheran Churches, we follow St. Paul and preach "Christ Crucified"; legalistic theology and the Church's remedy of people cooperating in their salvation through the purchase of indulgences is what triggered Luther's reformation. The theology of glory that many of the so-called "evangelical" churches promote make salvation about what the individual must do, and down-plays or negates the true Gospel which makes it all about Jesus Christ. The Theology of the Cross is foundation of the Confessional Lutheran Synods; hence the name here at CF: Theologia Crucis. J. S. Bach, likely the most well known Lutheran composer, did not sign his religious compositions with his name, rather, they were signed "Sola Deo Gloria"; to God alone be the glory.

The three ecumenical creeds are only part of our confessional documents.

First and foremost, it is the Bible (Sola Scriptura)

Besides the Bible, we have the unaltered Book of Concord, 1580 edition, which contains in addition to the Three ecumenical Creeds, all of which we consider an exposition of theology and it's application, which is contained in the Bible. BookOfConcord.org

 

[DragonFox91]

I was reading up on those different theories @Reluctant Theologian mentions were floating around (& became more popular). It's like they didn't have access to the Book of Hebrews back then. Or, more then likely, they did but they weren't reading it.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

I was reading up on those different theories @Reluctant Theologian mentions were floating around (& became more popular). It's like they didn't have access to the Book of Hebrews back then. Or, more then likely, they did but they weren't reading it.

Theologians in the early church did read Hebrews, yet still the currently dominant theory in Protestantism - Penal Substitution - was not the most dominant one in the early church - so it's actually the other way around.

The Atonement Debate (as it's called) has been going on for a very long time - Five Views on the Atonement of Christ (I'm not affiliated with the author in any way) has as nice overview.

The 'Penal Substitution' theory is struggling these days in apologetics with Jews, Muslims and Atheists as it yields some logical and moral issues that are difficult to resolve. Personally I do see the value of the 'Christ Victor' and 'Ransom' theories ..

E.g. see the recent book by Eitan Bar (a Messianic Jew) The “Gospel” of Divine Abuse - this book certainly is not the only one formulating a critique to 'Penal Substitution' but it is the most recent one I believe - it's not for faint-hearted Protestants/Calvinists.

Be blessed ...

 

[hopeforhappiness]

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!

"suffered for our salvation"....this wouldn't be a problem for the liberals preaching in our church. So clearly neither the Nicene nor the Athenasian creed is a problem for them. And one preacher that I am about to write to is likely to use those creeds to attack me. If he really knows his theology. Any thinking person (and no one seems to think in our congregation) would ask "suffered for our salvation" ..how does THAT work, then? Is it like a soldier giving his life so we in Britain could be Free? No, it's much more than that, otherwise God could have chosen another sacrificial method. It was His Son, part of the Deity, a perfect Man, in fulfilment of all the OT atoning sacrifices, that took the anger of God and opened up a closed channel to the Father and eternal happiness.
But all of this is anathema to our leaders.

 

[DragonFox91]

Theologians in the early church did read Hebrews, yet still the currently dominant theory in Protestantism - Penal Substitution - was not the most dominant one in the early church - so it's actually the other way around.

The Atonement Debate (as it's called) has been going on for a very long time - Five Views on the Atonement of Christ (I'm not affiliated with the author in any way) has as nice overview.

The 'Penal Substitution' theory is struggling these days in apologetics with Jews, Muslims and Atheists as it yields some logical and moral issues that are difficult to resolve. Personally I do see the value of the 'Christ Victor' and 'Ransom' theories ..

E.g. see the recent book by Eitan Bar (a Messianic Jew) The “Gospel” of Divine Abuse - this book certainly is not the only one formulating a critique to 'Penal Substitution' but it is the most recent one I believe - it's not for faint-hearted Protestants/Calvinists.

Be blessed ...

I was afraid you were going to say that.
We do not go by what the mob says or change the message to be popular. We go by Gods Word. It’s a stumbling block. It will be unpopular. We do not compromise it & it says what it says

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

I was afraid you were going to say that.
We do not go by what the mob says or change the message to be popular. We go by Gods Word. It’s a stumbling block. It will be unpopular. We do not compromise it & it says what it says

The fear is unnecessary; it's a misconception that theologians from nearly 2000 years ago who favoured Atonement Theories other than the currently dominant one ('Penal Substitution') didn't read their Bible well .. they did, yet arrived at conclusions/perspectives that are different from that later one.

If you read the overviews you will find Bible verses that support all of them in some ways. I presume you also have investigated yourself the problems with 'Penal Substitution'? What is your personal view on how to deal with those?

Theologians that have (passionately) written about it do not try to 'design' atonement theory to be popular, they honestly try to read and understand prayerfully the underlying text and ask themselves: 'what atonement theory is fair/honest to scripture without causing deep logical/moral problems .. ?' If they Bible were itself extremely clear and explicit about it we would not have nearly 2000 years of Atonement Debate.

We can have saving faith in Yeshua without exactly knowing HOW that atonement works (think of the murderer on the cross next to Yeshua); that's some consolation.

Be blessed brother .. !

 

[hopeforhappiness]

The fear is unnecessary; it's a misconception that theologians from nearly 2000 years ago who favoured Atonement Theories other than the currently dominant one ('Penal Substitution') didn't read their Bible well .. they did, yet arrived at conclusions/perspectives that are different from that later one.

If you read the overviews you will find Bible verses that support all of them in some ways. I presume you also have investigated yourself the problems with 'Penal Substitution'? What is your personal view on how to deal with those?

Theologians that have (passionately) written about it do not try to 'design' atonement theory to be popular, they honestly try to read and understand prayerfully the underlying text and ask themselves: 'what atonement theory is fair/honest to scripture without causing deep logical/moral problems .. ?' If they Bible were itself extremely clear and explicit about it we would not have nearly 2000 years of Atonement Debate.

We can have saving faith in Yeshua without exactly knowing HOW that atonement works (think of the murderer on the cross next to Yeshua); that's some consolation.

Be blessed brother .. !

But my church doesn't like any version of atonement theory. Would you say that IS a problem. I think the general approach is Jesus came to set THE example and being a Good Person, inevitably the political powers killed him. The resurrection is a bit of an embarrassment, too but in some sense that bit is linked to the Holy Spirit helping us to be more just, etc