Nicene Creed, please clarify

[GenemZ]

I am not looking to debate the Nicene Creed. Nor, do I want others to debate the Creed. I am looking for those who grew up in churches who follow the Creed to explain what certain parts mean.

Not only what they mean (which is usually stated in the Creed directly) - but to explain how those who wrote the Creed concluded what they did. What were the theological rationales used to declare the conclusions. That would give us all understanding, rather than simply repeating something by rote.

Several points in the Creed I would like to spotlight. It may help some of us having difficulty in comprehending what is being said, so we can see what it is its asking us to agree with.

Again, this thread is not opened to debate the Creed. Its not for those who wish to disagree with its conclusions. I desire to better understand the reasoning which led to the conclusions.

I think that may help some of us better understand God, if some here know why the Creed says what it does.

Would you please, present the 'whys' for the conclusions the Creed asks for us to confess?

This is done in respect so that I can better understand certain parts of the Creed that make declarations.... give a chapter and verse.. but never tell why the Scripture agrees with the conclusion. Thank you...

Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1: 2)

How was he begotten? In what way? I know how Jesus was begotten in his humanity. But? What is that meaning? "Begotten before all ages."

Begotten, not made; (John 1: 18)

What is that saying? Is it in reference to his birth in the manger? Or, is this about being begotten before all ages?

If anyone is learned in this area I would appreciate to see why those things are said, and what exactly they are saying.

I am not asking for opinion.

"I think it means this..."

I am asking for the official Church doctrine. What was the exegesis involved to state what it does?

Please. No links.

... No recommended books.

Please clarify so we all can see and benefit here and now.

Thank you.

Grace and peace, GeneZ
​

 

[Theophorus]

The only language used in the creed that does not come from scripture is the statement, "of one essence with the Father".

There was great debate on whether to include this statement. It is this statement that sums up, the other 2.

Begotten- meaning "not made" as later stated, From the Father outside of time. Think of the Logos. The word "from" is weak, and like I said, the creed is a statement using the language of Holy scripture.

It defines 2 (the Holy Spirit is further down) hypostases of the Godhead stating that Christ is uncreated and of the same essence as God.

Also, it is viewed apophatically, so one is not really supposed to infer too much.

 

[Oblio]

What was the exegesis when Scripture was written ?

Not sure why you don't want links ISTM that is you wanted your question answered that links to primary sources would be welcomed.

I will say that there is one Saint who mentioned that this issue of begotten/proceeds is in effect a Mystery. That one might as well explain the Mystery of the Incarnation or the Holy Trinity to exactly define what they mean. We can say that procession and begotten are two different things, but we cannot say exactly what they mean. I only mention this (recalling your admonition to not explain what it means) to illustrate that the Creed is not simply an 'Orthodox Faith and Message', it is part of the word of God and contains depth and breadth that surpasses the intellect of man.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I only mention this (recalling your admonition to not explain what it means) to illustrate that the Creed is not simply an 'Orthodox Faith and Message', it is part of the word of God and contains depth and breadth that surpasses the intellect of man.

I agree but then how can man written Creeds define it Is that like putting the Word in a "box"?

Isaiah 65:18 But joy ye, and rejoice for ever, that I Creator, For, lo, I am Creating Jerusalem a rejoicing, And her people a joy. 19 And I have rejoiced in Jerusalem, And have joyed in My people,

Hebrew 12:20 for they were not bearing that which is commanded, `And if a beast may touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or with an arrow shot through,' 21 and, (so terrible was the sight,) Moses said, `I am fearful exceedingly, and trembling.' 22 But, ye came to Mount Zion, and to a City of the living God, to the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of messengers,

 

[R3quiem]

Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1: 2)

How was he begotten? In what way? I know how Jesus was begotten in his humanity. But? What is that meaning? "Begotten before all ages."

Begotten, not made; (John 1: 18)

What is that saying? Is it in reference to his birth in the manger? Or, is this about being begotten before all ages?

It means that although Jesus was born as a man to Mary, that wasn't his true beginning. Jesus was "begotten" from the Father an eternity ago, so he is eternal just like the Father. Scripture:

John 8:54-59
Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."
"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It means that although Jesus was born as a man to Mary, that wasn't his true beginning. Jesus was "begotten" from the Father an eternity ago, so he is eternal just like the Father. Scripture:

John 8:54-59 Jesus replied, "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

What is your view on Exodus 3 where YHWH proclaimed His Name? We had a discussion on that on the NCR board

http://www.christianforums.com/t5925329-question-on-exouds-3-and-i-am-hayah.html

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Exodus 3:13 And Mosheh is saying unto 'Elohiym , `Lo, I am coming unto sons of Yisra'el, and I say to them, 'Elohiym of your fathers He sends me unto you, and they have said to me, What [is] His Name? what do I say unto them?'
14 And 'Elohiym saith unto Mosheh, "I-shall-be/01961 ha-yah who I-shall-be/01961 ha-yah". And-He saying `Thus dost thou say to the sons of Yisra'el, I-shall-be/01961 ha-yah He-sent-me unto-you.'
15 And 'Elohiym saith again unto Moses, `Thus dost thou say unto the sons of Yisra'el, YHWH, 'Elohiym of your fathers, 'Elohiym of Abraham, 'Elohiym of Yitschaq, and 'Elohiym of Ya`aqob, hath sent me unto you; this [is] My name--to the age, and this My memorial, to generation--generation.

Used 43 times in 40 verses as

I-shall-be I-am-becoming I-shall-become

01961 ha-yah {haw-yaw} a primitive root [compare 01933]; TWOT - 491; v
AV - was, come to pass, came, has been, were happened, become, pertained, better for thee; 75
1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out 1a) (Qal) 1a1) -----

 

[R3quiem]

What is your view on Exodus 3 where YHWH proclaimed His Name? We had a discussion on that on the NCR board

Well I only can have an understanding of it in English, because I don't know how to read the original languages it was spoken in.

I always figured "I AM!" just means..he IS. That there is no way to truly describe him other than to say that he IS, because he is beyond all understanding.

 

[GenemZ]

What was the exegesis when Scripture was written ?

Not sure why you don't want links

To find out if you can understand it yourself. That you can explain it yourself. Or, if you are only repeating words that you do not understand. Which would be unfair for others who would be required to accept the Creed, but want to understand it first before they do.



Links may, or may not supply a true answer. But, supplying a link let's one off the hook of not having to reveal if they understand what they say is the truth. I want to see who here actually understands the Creed in this area. Links are often times misleading because they only supply an opinion of another which for some reason should be accepted as being truth, because someone else said it.

And, you can not inquire of a quote on a link to further explain something needing clarification. Often times understanding is gained by questioning the other until things can be clarified.

ISTM that is you wanted your question answered that links to primary sources would be welcomed.

Not now. I want to see if there are people here that actually understand it for themselves. I can give links to other exegetical problems in Scripture, and someone can supply a counter link. Links prove nothing without understanding.

I want to receive an answer from someone who has understanding for them self.

I will say that there is one Saint who mentioned that this issue of begotten/proceeds is in effect a Mystery.

I thought that may be the answer.

That one might as well explain the Mystery of the Incarnation or the Holy Trinity to exactly define what they mean. We can say that procession and begotten are two different things, but we cannot say exactly what they mean.

I thought that may be the answer.

I only mention this (recalling your admonition to not explain what it means)

I said I wanted some to explain what it means.

Why would I be asking for someone to not explain something? I said I did not want personal opinion. I wanted official church statements, and to be able to explain them so they could be understood. Cutting and pasting would be fine as long as its not using one technical word after another that obscures logic to the reader. Being able to explain the technical vocabulary would make it acceptable.

to illustrate that the Creed is not simply an 'Orthodox Faith and Message', it is part of the word of God and contains depth and breadth that surpasses the intellect of man.

Does that mean? It can not be explained as to how the Creed concluded what it has concluded? It can not show what the reasons are for what it concludes?

Does it also mean that what it says is a "mystery" is to remain a mystery, on the same level it was a mystery when written? That if someone believes he has insight into how something stated can be so? Its not to be given? That the same level of "mystery" back then, is to be maintained today?

The reason I ask the last question, is because a mystery leaves itself wide open for personal interpretation.

If sound doctrinal thinking can further define the reason for the mystery? Yet, it may not agree with someone else's personally held interpretation of that mystery? And, on the basis of that? Be seen as not agreeing with the Creed?

For those reasons? That is why I want to find out. So, the Creed be used to determine another's faith. But? How can it be if the Creed itself is never truly defined?

These are the details about the Creed which I want to find answers. So it can be used to define faith.

What I say is not out of desire for debate. Its only to show why if the Creed can not be defined? That it can not be used to define and determine what a believer's faith truly is. For no one can say what the mystery truly means.

Now? If it could be done? Define the mystery? Should it remain a mystery because the original authors claimed it was a mystery to them? It seems to be the case. That is why I asked what I did. To see if its true.

These are the details about the Creed which I want to find answers. I am sure someone in the forum will be able to define why the Creed concluded what it did.

For it speaks of being eternally begotten. Yet? Begotten implies something that was not, coming into being.

See why I am asking?

No debating this issue! I do not want someone telling us the Son was not eternally begotten! I want to see how the authors of the Creed were able to determine why that is so. I want to understand why they wrote what they did.

Grace and peace, GeneZ
​

 

[Fireinfolding]

just had to say, killer thread and thoughts here genez

 

[Oblio]

I agree but then how can man written Creeds define it Is that like putting the Word in a "box"?

Is written Scripture putting the word of God in a Box ?

 

[Oblio]

To find out if you can understand it yourself. That you can explain it yourself. Or, if you are only repeating words that you do not understand. Which would be unfair for others who would be required to accept the Creed, but want to understand it first before they do.

I can say the same thing about evangelicals WRT the Bible.

 

[Oblio]

For it speaks of being eternally begotten. Yet? Begotten implies something that was not, coming into being.

See why I am asking?

I see why you are asking.

Begotten only implies something coming into being, you are looking at this with rationalistic eyes. Christianity is above all is an Oriental religion, and must be looked at with that mindset. A Western eye will see distortion. This is why the Fathers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to further add ...before all ages .... IOW He is eternally Begotten of the Father, there is never a time when He was not. Recall that the Father is the source of the other two Persons of the Holy Trinity. This does not mean however that He created them, nor does it mean that He 'sourced' them at some time and prior to that They did not exist.

 

[Oblio]

If sound doctrinal thinking can further define the reason for the mystery? Yet, it may not agree with someone else's personally held interpretation of that mystery? And, on the basis of that? Be seen as not agreeing with the Creed?

The Creed is not someones personal opinion, it is part of God's revelation to man. If a personal interpretation disagrees with the Creed, it is wrong, a heresy. One cannot disagree with the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed and be a Christian.

 

[Oblio]

What I say is not out of desire for debate. Its only to show why if the Creed can not be defined? That it can not be used to define and determine what a believer's faith truly is. For no one can say what the mystery truly means.

Can you define the Bible ? Can you use it to determine what the Christian faith is ?

 

[Oblio]

To find out if you can understand it yourself. That you can explain it yourself. Or, if you are only repeating words that you do not understand.

Then I find your request disingenuous.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I agree but then how can man written Creeds define it Is that like putting the Word in a "box"?

Is written Scripture putting the word of God in a Box ?

The Creed is not someones personal opinion, it is part of God's revelation to man. If a personal interpretation disagrees with the Creed, it is wrong, a heresy. One cannot disagree with the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed and be a Christian.

Who said anything about the Creeds being written Scripture.

They are an "interpretation", not scripture, and sinse the catholic church deems itself "The Church", it is also THEIR interpretaion of it, correct? And if it was the correct interpretation, there wouldn't be Protestants.

http://www.creeds.net/

The Creeds and Confessions produced by the Christian Church over the centuries are not inspired additions to Scripture nor in any way replacements for the words of Christ and his apostles or the prophets which preceded them. Instead these human documents are carefully considered and usually thoughtfully worded responses to various issues, heresies and historical situations that have troubled the Church and the world over the centuries. Creeds are statements of faith that are true and authoritative insofar as they accurately reflect what Scripture teaches. Those linked here have been found useful either by the entire Church or by important segments and/or denominations of it over the ages. They are thus helpful "measuring sticks" for orthodoxy. Canons but not the canon.

 

[Oblio]

Who said anything about the Creeds being written Scripture.

The Creed is the word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. I never said it was Holy Scripture.

 

[GenemZ]

I see why you are asking.

Begotten only implies something coming into being, you are looking at this with rationalistic eyes. Christianity is above all is an Oriental religion, and must be looked at with that mindset. A Western eye will see distortion. This is why the Fathers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to further add ...before all ages .... IOW He is eternally Begotten of the Father, there is never a time when He was not.

All that indicates is what the word begotten means, is not what we normally see it as meaning. I have no problem with that thinking you mentioned. Its the word 'begotten' for many of us that causes a problem. We tend to think of reproduction and birth.

It could be said, "a pool was begotten of a lake." That does not mean the water in the pool at some time came into existence. It means it had already existed but was moved to another place for a different function.

The pool was 'begotten' of the Lake Oganda. The Lake was exsiting before the pool. And, what the essence of what the pool is, existed before it became a pool.

Does that help explain it better?

Recall that the Father is the source of the other two Persons of the Holy Trinity. This does not mean however that He created them, nor does it mean that He 'sourced' them at some time and prior to that They did not exist.

Substitute Lake for 'God?' And, 'pools' for the Trinity?

All three contain the same attributes of being water, all of the same substance. All can freeze, be liquid, or vaporize. Yet, the Son may be in a container to hold the pool water, and the Holy Spirit may be vaporized water from the Lake.

I know no analogy is perfect, but I think this may begin to better explain the feel for how the word 'begotten' was used.

Grace and peace, GeneZ​

 

[GenemZ]

The Creed is the word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. I never said it was Holy Scripture.

You did not mean? The Creed pertains to truths concerning the Word of God? But? Is the Word of God itself?

That would mean it can not contain any error. And, that baptismal regeneration is the means to salvation. Correct?

I am not here to debate this with you to disagree. I just want to understand if this is what you believe.

Thank you...

In grace, GeneZ​

 

[Oblio]

All that indicates is what the word begotten means, is not what we normally see it as meaning.

We, meaning Western Protestants Eatern Orthodox normally see it, and have for millenia, as something different.