Nicene Creed, please clarify

[Oblio]

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

Yes it is, as is the rest of Holy Tradition, including and pinnacled with Holy Scripture.

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

There is no error in the NC Creed.
No, Christ is the means of salvation. The Creed does not state that Baptismal regeneration is the means of Salvation.

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

Thank you...

We really do appreciate that. Not many take the time to do so

 

[Oblio]

Its the word 'begotten' for many of us that causes a problem. We tend to think of reproduction and birth.

The word 'begotten' is not in the original Creed. It has been translated/interpreted to 'begotten' in English. To understand (as best we can) we need to ask the Church.

 

[Oblio]

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεόν, Πατέρα, Παντοκράτορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων.

Καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων· φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί, δι οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο.

Τὸν δι ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ σαρκωθέντα ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα.

Σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, καὶ παθόντα καὶ ταφέντα.

Καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρα κατὰ τὰς Γραφάς.

Καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Πατρός.

Καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον μετὰ δόξης κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος.

Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν.

Εἰς μίαν, Ἁγίαν, Καθολικὴν καὶ Ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν.

Ὁμολογῶ ἓν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.

Προσδοκῶ ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν.

Καὶ ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος.

Ἀμήν.

 

[Thekla]

I don't know how well I can do this, so regrets in advance ...

to understand, a few things must be considered. The words of the creed are better viewed in relation to each other. Father and begotten should be considered in relation to one another, rather than separately. Father, (the term Christ used) refers to origin, cause(?). It is (and in english still can) also used to identify "nationhood, ethnoi", but I think in the sense of what makes a particular people that particular people or ethnoi. Begotten can be understood not only as "born of", but as a class of -- indicating a commonality of "substance". Begotten and Father together imply relatedness, and the understanding of begotten is distinct from the potentially similar term "created, made". Recall that the creed responds to the arian heresy, which taught that Christ was created.

To add to this, another window through which to view this discussion, any term used in Christianity is (potentially) borrowed from the common usage and "lifted" to a Christian (spiritual) understanding. As a clumsy example, both arnaki/arni and amnos mean lamb in greek. Want to get a slap upside the head from a greek yiayia (grandmother)? Refer to the lamb on your dinner plate as amnos. That word for lamb is used exclusively in reference to Christ.

Finally -- the understanding of the Trinity (to paraphrase one EO writer) "slays human reason". The Trinity cannot be understood, and like much, that is okay in the EO Church.

 

[Oblio]

Who was that said that to fully understand the Holy Trinity is to go mad ? Which now that I think of it, would be synonymous (there's that Greek again) with being mad.

 

[GeratTzedek]

The word 'begotten' is not in the original Creed. It has been translated/interpreted to 'begotten' in English. To understand (as best we can) we need to ask the Church.

Does this mean you have problems with John 3:16?

 

[Thekla]

Who was that said that to fully understand the Holy Trinity is to go mad ? Which now that I think of it, would be synonymous (there's that Greek again) with being mad.

(or to think you can is to be "mad" )

 

[Oblio]

Does this mean you have problems with John 3:16?

No. It probably means that you don't understand it.

 

[GeratTzedek]

Who was that said that to fully understand the Holy Trinity is to go mad ? Which now that I think of it, would be synonymous (there's that Greek again) with being mad.

Trinitarianism as it now exists, which I personally hold to, formed as a response to basic errors and heresies which were floating around. I think if we look to it as telling us what G-d is NOT, rather than what G-d IS, we will be much less crazy.

For example:
There are not three gods
The Son is not mere prophet or angel
The Son is not created
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not some homogenous being

Nothing crazymaking about those statements.

 

[Oblio]

Nothing crazymaking about those statements.

While I applaud your apophatic approach to the understanding of of the Holy Trinity, what it does NOT do, nor does it purport to do, is understand that which it describes through negation. Such a goal, let alone claim, would be an anathema to the Holy Fathers who pioneered such thought.

A God which we can understand is no God at all.

 

[Thekla]

Trinitarianism as it now exists, which I personally hold to, formed as a response to basic errors and heresies which were floating around. I think if we look to it as telling us what G-d is NOT, rather than what G-d IS, we will be much less crazy.

For example:
There are not three gods
The Son is not mere prophet or angel
The Son is not created
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not some homogenous being

Nothing crazymaking about those statements.

yes and no. The creed has value being in cataphatic language, because this affirms what we do believe (as you noted, in response to heretical teachings). On the other hand, apophatic language has limitations, too.
To say, for example, that Christ is not mere prophet or angel could imply He could be anything except prophet or angel - which is unacceptable.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by GerTzedek
Does this mean you have problems with John 3:16?

No. It probably means that you don't understand it.

Could it also mean only-generated? Looks eerily similar to the 2 greek words in Matt 23:33 concerning "generation".

John 3:16 for God did so love the world, that His Son--the only-begotten/mono-genh <3439>--He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.

John 3:16 outwV gar hgaphsen o qeoV ton kosmon wste ton uion autou ton mono-genh edwken ina paV o pisteuwn eiV auton mh apolhtai all ech zwhn aiwnion

Matt 23:33 `Serpents! generation/beggotten/gennh-mata <1081> of vipers! how may ye escape from the judgment of the gehenna/geennhV <1067>?

Matthew 23:33 ofeiV gennhmata ecidnwn pwV fughte apo thV krisewV thV geennhV

3439. monogenes mon-og-en-ace' from 3441 and 1096; only-born, i.e. sole:--only (begotten, child).
3441. monos mon'-os probably from 3306; remaining, i.e. sole or single; by implication, mere:--alone, only, by themselves.
1085. genos ghen'-os from 1096; "kin" (abstract or concrete, literal or figurative, individual or collective):--born, country(-man), diversity, generation, kind(-red), nation, offspring, stock.

 

[Oblio]

Could it also mean only-generated? Looks eerily similar to the 2 greek words in Matt 23:33 concerning "generation".

If I may offer a bit of advice. Put down that darn intralinear Bible. It's going to get you in trouble. You don't understand the faith once delivered unto the Saints by comparing words in a language that you don't speak or understand. Did you not read what Thekla wrote ? Do you know what Kyrie eleison means and why ?

Ever listen to Gallagher do his little sketch on English words that are spelled the same ?

 

[GeratTzedek]

No. It probably means that you don't understand it.

Or, possibly, that I don't understand your interpretation of John 3:16

It sounded like the very word "begotten" in English was somehow a problem. Glad to hear that it is not.

 

[Oblio]

Or, possibly, that I don't understand your interpretation of John 3:16

You don't understand the interpretation of the Church that wrote the Creed.

 

[Oblio]

It sounded like the very word "begotten" in English was somehow a problem. Glad to hear that it is not.

It's only a problem with modern English speakers, and then only those that believe that in this context it was translated from the original to mean created or born. The Church has no such problem.

 

[GeratTzedek]

If I may offer a bit of advice. Put down that darn intralinear Bible. It's going to get you in trouble. You don't understand the faith once delivered unto the Saints by comparing words in a language that you don't speak or understand. Did you not read what Thekla wrote ? Do you know what Kyrie eleison means and why ?

You don't understand the interpretation of the Church that wrote the Creed.

Actually, yes, I know what Kyrie Eleison means and why. I think its presumptuous for you to assert what others do and do not know. Perhaps you know more than others here, me included. But it doesn't excuse you treating us like maroons.

Further, I'm brand spanking new to this forum. What do you know about me? You know nothing other than that I'm a believer with a Torah scroll for an icon. Trust me, you know nothing of me.

I love the Orthodox. You are not, however, the only ones with an appreciation for the Church Fathers and Saints or the liturgies and creeds which have been passed down.

 

[Thekla]

Could it also mean only-generated? Looks eerily similar to the 2 greek words in Matt 23:33 concerning "generation".

it did/does ... with a BIG qualification.

Agia/holy/set aside for God.

The word amnos has been "set aside" to refer only to Christ.

The word Logos (vs. logos) is "set aside".

The terms in the Creed are "set aside".

These terms are 'related to' but completely unlike their common use.
One could say, before theosis they are only a shadow of their meaning.

 

[GeratTzedek]

It's only a problem with modern English speakers, and then only those that believe that in this context it was translated from the original to mean created or born. The Church has no such problem.

Of course it doesn't mean created or born. One doesn't even have to be a scholar to know this: even a cursory glance at the history and language of the Creed tells a person what WAS meant by begotten.

 

[GeratTzedek]

yes and no. The creed has value being in cataphatic language, because this affirms what we do believe (as you noted, in response to heretical teachings). On the other hand, apophatic language has limitations, too.
To say, for example, that Christ is not mere prophet or angel could imply He could be anything except prophet or angel - which is unacceptable.

The difficulty is, HaShem is utterly beyond our ability to comprehend. We may know him peronally through experiential contact. We may know of His wishes and some things about Him given to us through scripture and the Apostles and the church etc. But who can fathom G-d?

There is nothing wrong and everything right with seeking to understand G-d. But to assume He can be captured in the sentences of language is not reasonable. It seems to me that the closer our language comes to capturing more of the truth about HaShem, the more our own sentences become incomprehensible.