Theologians refute misconceptions about 1,700-year-old Nicene Creed

Michie · Jul 16, 2025

Theologians have refuted misconceptions about the Nicene Creed and the council in 325 that created it, as many churches celebrate the 1,700th anniversary of the influential document.

In a recent episode of the Dallas Theological Seminary's “The Table"podcast, Malcolm B. Yarnell III, research professor of systematic theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, and Michael J. Svigel, DTS professor of historical and systematic theology, discussed the Nicene Creed's origins and impact on modern society.

Yarnell explained that while it was “the most universally accepted creed” in Christianity, “it has been challenged at various points through Christian history.”

Continued below.

Theologians refute misconceptions about 1,700-year-old Nicene Creed

Theologians have refuted misconceptions about the Nicene Creed and the council in 325 that created it, as many churches celebrate the 1,700th anniversary of the influential document

www.christianpost.com

RandyPNW · Jul 16, 2025

Michie said:
Theologians have refuted misconceptions about the Nicene Creed and the council in 325 that created it, as many churches celebrate the 1,700th anniversary of the influential document.

In a recent episode of the Dallas Theological Seminary's “The Table"podcast, Malcolm B. Yarnell III, research professor of systematic theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, and Michael J. Svigel, DTS professor of historical and systematic theology, discussed the Nicene Creed's origins and impact on modern society.

Yarnell explained that while it was “the most universally accepted creed” in Christianity, “it has been challenged at various points through Christian history.”

Continued below.

Theologians refute misconceptions about 1,700-year-old Nicene Creed

Theologians have refuted misconceptions about the Nicene Creed and the council in 325 that created it, as many churches celebrate the 1,700th anniversary of the influential document

www.christianpost.com

I just had an exchange on another forum...

Someone said: "I believe that the second Person of God has always existed with the Father and the third Person, the Holy Spirit. However, the second Person joined the human race as fully God and completely human, the Son of God, when Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit in Mary's womb. He continues with the title Son of God forever into the future."

I said:
"The whole problem is that we identify the "Son of God" with the Incarnation much more easily than we do with His preexistent state of being from eternity. We only know that the Apostle John wrote, "the Word was with God." If he was preincarnate as the Word and existed side by side with God, then the Trinity had to have existed from eternity.

I've tried to share my thoughts on what the "Son of God" was in his preexistent state, but it can create problems. The best I can say is that if each Person of the Trinity existed from eternity, then identifying them as an eternal Trinity is our only way of expressing this.

I personally think that the Apostle John was merely stating that Deity, as identified in all 3 Persons, must by definition have its origin in eternity. John was just stating that God's Word is distinguishable in its preexistent state in eternity because the revelation of Deity is capable of expressions both inside of and outside of eternity from the vantage point of the recipients of that revelation.

The Word in eternity has no face, from our point of view. But from our point of view, we can imagine it as such, having seen how Divine revelation has appeared in our temporal world. I will now proceed to suck my thumb!

The Liturgist · Jul 16, 2025

RandyPNW said:
I've tried to share my thoughts on what the "Son of God" was in his preexistent state, but it can create problems. The best I can say is that if each Person of the Trinity existed from eternity, then identifying them as an eternal Trinity is our only way of expressing this.

This issue has actually been addressed by the Early Church Fathers and addressed quite well. Essentially, pre-Incarnational appearances of Christ can be accepted, for one thing, because we know from John 1:1-18 that no one had seen the Father at any time, so insofar as St. Moses speaking with God in person, aside from the Burning Bush incident, which seems like, insofar as there was an unconsuming fire on the bush, rather like the Tongues in Pentecost and thus likely the Holy Spirit, the conversation on Mount Sinai was likely with Christ our True God, and also the Ancient oF Days seen by St. Isaiah.* Of course that this was Only Begotten Son and Word of God and not the Father doesn’t matter that much insofar as both are God, as is the Holy Spirit, and Christ has said “He who has seen me has seen the Father” and is elsewhere described as “the image of the invisible God” and “He in whom the fullness of the godhead dwells bodily” which is also reflected in His name, emanuel.

For in the incarnation, it is the case (and your friend almost got this right), that Christ put on our humanity and united it with His divinity without change,confusion, separation and division.

As for how this can be, we must remember that God exists in eternity, so from His perspective, the past and future do not apply; God created time and is not bound by it, since spacetime is a characteristic of this universe, a thing, and like all things, was made through Christ our True God according to John 1:1-3. Thus, Christ in His incarnation, after His ascension, could appear in the past, and we know from his transfiguration on Mount Tabor that the uncreated light of God is blinding, and it is also significant that St. Moses and St. Elijah were present at that moment and were witnessed by the Holy Apostles Peter, James the Great and John the Beloved.

* It is also widely speculated that Mechlizedek was a Christophany, but this point is extremely controversial, and has been since antiquity, thus I have no opinon on the matter.

RandyPNW · Jul 16, 2025

The Liturgist said:
This issue has actually been addressed by the Early Church Fathers and addressed quite well. Essentially, pre-Incarnational appearances of Christ can be accepted, for one thing, because we know from John 1:1-18 that no one had seen the Father at any time, so insofar as St. Moses speaking with God in person, aside from the Burning Bush incident, which seems like, insofar as there was an unconsuming fire on the bush, rather like the Tongues in Pentecost and thus likely the Holy Spirit, the conversation on Mount Sinai was likely with Christ our True God, and also the Ancient oF Days seen by St. Isaiah.* Of course that this was Only Begotten Son and Word of God and not the Father doesn’t matter that much insofar as both are God, as is the Holy Spirit, and Christ has said “He who has seen me has seen the Father” and is elsewhere described as “the image of the invisible God” and “He in whom the fullness of the godhead dwells bodily” which is also reflected in His name, emanuel.

For in the incarnation, it is the case (and your friend almost got this right), that Christ put on our humanity and united it with His divinity without change,confusion, separation and division.

As for how this can be, we must remember that God exists in eternity, so from His perspective, the past and future do not apply; God created time and is not bound by it, since spacetime is a characteristic of this universe, a thing, and like all things, was made through Christ our True God according to John 1:1-3. Thus, Christ in His incarnation, after His ascension, could appear in the past, and we know from his transfiguration on Mount Tabor that the uncreated light of God is blinding, and it is also significant that St. Moses and St. Elijah were present at that moment and were witnessed by the Holy Apostles Peter, James the Great and John the Beloved.

* It is also widely speculated that Mechlizedek was a Christophany, but this point is extremely controversial, and has been since antiquity, thus I have no opinon on the matter.

Sorry, but I think you've completely misunderstood me. I take the blame. I was talking not about pre-Incarnate appearances of the Son of God, but rather, of any sense of the Son of God as a distinct Person *in Eternity* apart from the fact the distinct Persons of God are expressed as a plurality.

"The Word was with God." The word "with" indicates a plurality. But we have no sense of who the Son of God was at that time. We may identify Him in Eternity as the "Word of God," but that provides no sense of what that Person looked like and only recognize the distinction.

But as you say, time and eternity merge for God, and become incomprehensible for us. So we see the plurality of God only as a necessity, based on the information we have. Any Personage of God must, by definition, have been from Eternity. Therefore, all 3 Persons are distinct from Eternity, whether we can conceive of what the Son of God was or not at that point in time.

Thank you for your comments.

The Liturgist · Jul 17, 2025

RandyPNW said:
But we have no sense of who the Son of God was at that time. We may identify Him in Eternity as the "Word of God," but that provides no sense of what that Person looked like and only recognize the distinction.

Actually thanks to the Scriptural principle of Divine Immutability we do know who the Son of God was, at all times: Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:9).

jas3 · Jul 17, 2025

From the article:

The Nicene Creed reaffirmed the orthodox belief that Jesus was “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.”

My understanding is that "God from God" is actually not original to the Creed (and is redundant with "true God from true God,") but it doesn't get nearly as much attention as the other addition of the filioque.

BobRyan · Jul 18, 2025

Michie said:
Theologians have refuted misconceptions about the Nicene Creed and the council in 325 that created it, as many churches celebrate the 1,700th anniversary of the influential document.

In a recent episode of the Dallas Theological Seminary's “The Table"podcast, Malcolm B. Yarnell III, research professor of systematic theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, and Michael J. Svigel, DTS professor of historical and systematic theology, discussed the Nicene Creed's origins and impact on modern society.

Yarnell explained that while it was “the most universally accepted creed” in Christianity, “it has been challenged at various points through Christian history.”

Continued below.

Theologians refute misconceptions about 1,700-year-old Nicene Creed

Theologians have refuted misconceptions about the Nicene Creed and the council in 325 that created it, as many churches celebrate the 1,700th anniversary of the influential document

www.christianpost.com

Your article notes that the Nicene creed changed nothing in the Bible and added nothing to it.

"proof" for any given doctrine is not "The creed", it is scripture.

The fact that the Trinity - Triune God head is in scripture - is itself sufficient. The fact that the Nicene creed affirms it - is "good for the Nicene creed" but that is not what proves that the Trinity doctrine is correct.

The Liturgist · Jul 18, 2025

BobRyan said:
Your article notes that the Nicene creed changed nothing in the Bible and added nothing to it.

"proof" for any given doctrine is not "The creed", it is scripture.

The fact that the Trinity - Triune God head is in scripture - is itself sufficient. The fact that the Nicene creed affirms it - is "good for the Nicene creed" but that is not what proves that the Trinity doctrine is correct.

Apparently not, since the Arians using the same canon of Scripture embraced a totally heretical doctrine. Which is why the Creed was promulgated - to differentiate between Christianity and Arianism and to ensure no Christians acquainted with the Creed would fall for the heresy of Arius. This is why most churches read the Nicene Creed, the Apostles’ Creed or the Athanasian Creed every Sunday, usually the Nicene.

ViaCrucis · Monday at 11:02 PM

jas3 said:
From the article:

The Nicene Creed reaffirmed the orthodox belief that Jesus was “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.”

My understanding is that "God from God" is actually not original to the Creed (and is redundant with "true God from true God,") but it doesn't get nearly as much attention as the other addition of the filioque.

The original Greek text lacks "God from God", but is present in the Latin. Though the expression is, if my source is correct, present in the original 325 Formula.

-CryptoLutheran

Search

Search

Theologians refute misconceptions about 1,700-year-old Nicene Creed

Michie

Well-Known Member