NICENE CREED; should a christian really take this OATH?

[Chrysalis Kat]

Once again, the Creed is not an oath.

The Creed was, indeed, written by men -- as was the Bible.

Even though referring to the Creed as an oath is not technically correct I can see why someone on CF would think so because members are required to 'affirm' the Creed in order to post in the exclusive forums.

 

[MidnightBlue]

Rochir, I suspect that the 'powers that be' aren't aware that there are Christian Unitarians as opposed to only there being Universalist Unitarians. Not sure if that would make a difference to them but perhaps this needs to be addressed?

I would've thought it was obvious that a Unitarian could be both a Christian and a Universalist. But maybe it's not.

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

I would've thought it was obvious that a Unitarian could be both a Christian and a Universalist. But maybe it's not.

Me Too! But perhaps this is not CF common knowledge. It's possible that the belief in Universalism is the real deal breaker here but I don't know.

 

[greenonion]

Rochir, I suspect that the 'powers that be' aren't aware that there are Christian Unitarians as opposed to only there being Universalist Unitarians. Not sure if that would make a difference to them but perhaps this needs to be addressed?

But isn't the Nicene Creed the definition for Christian on this board? From what I've read, Christian Unitarians don't believe in the Trinity, which is affirmed in the NC (please correct me if I'm wrong.)

Cause I'm a Christian in that I (try to) follow Christ and hold him in high regard, as a prophet or someone sent from God. But according to the CF definition I most certainly am NOT a Christian and am constantly reminded of that.

The CF definition is of Christian is quite narrow.

 

[Rochir]

Of course, not all UU congregations refer to themselves as churches at all. Of the two nearest me, one is a church and one is a fellowship. A fine lot of people they are, too, and the area is a better place because of them. Many of them are not Christians, and to impose a creed would destroy their unity; I understand and respect that.

Yes, especially UU - Unitarian universalists - usually are less religious than Theistic Unitarians. This past week I have been trying to explain that distinction to a number of people, but I must say ... many remain ignorant about the dustinctions between the different branches of Unitarians and lump all under UU!



Anyway, to get back on topic: In my book people do not need a creed to love, admire and follow Jesus.

 

[Rochir]

Rochir, I suspect that the 'powers that be' aren't aware that there are Christian Unitarians as opposed to only there being Universalist Unitarians. Not sure if that would make a difference to them but perhaps this needs to be addressed?

You are very correct here, and right now I'm trying to address this issue in this thread.

To recognize the distinction between many UU and many TU/CU would be a good first and proper step.

 

[Rochir]

Me Too! But perhaps this is not CF common knowledge. It's possible that the belief in Universalism is the real deal breaker here but I don't know.

Historically, Unitarians were a religious movement, while Universalists were a humanistic/philosophical one. Somewhere in time, both branches merged and are now recognized (particularly in the USA) as Unitarian Universalists!

However, there ARE strong and historically deeply rooted congregations of Christian Unitarains especially in New England and GB (I believe) who are very religous in their approach to Unitarianism. To call these Non-Christians is a slap in their (and my) face!

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

To say that your church is 'creedless' is untrue, I am afraid Rochir. 'Creed' comes from the Latin word 'credo' meaning 'I believe'. If your church has a faith--which it clearly does from the statement you posted--then it is a church with a creed.

I do not entirely agree with the CF definition of Christian, I suppose, but on the whole I do agree that it is mostly correct.

If the Scriptures can be inspired by God though they are written by men, why can the promogulations and creeds of a Council be inspired by God though written and declared by men?

The creed is not an 'oath' and the implication that any Christian (or any Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Communist, Atheist, Republican etc.) can have no creed is preposterous. To have a creed is to believe in something. As a Christian, you must believe in Jesus the Messiah. As a Muslim, you must believe in Allah and the Prophet Muhammed. As an atheist you must believe that God doesn't exist.

All ideologies, faiths and ways of life have 'creeds'. Christianity is not Christianity without creeds. People often speak disparigingly of 'creed', 'truth', 'orthodox', 'heresy' or dogma as though they ought not be recognised. If you have none of these you have no beliefs whatsoever. Do you believe the Universe exists? A creed, a dogma, a truth. To you, it is orthodox to hold that the Universe exists. To you it is heresy to say the Universe doesn't exist.

If you have none of these you have no faith. You have nothing. I am extremely irked by the suggestion that belief or creed is somehow wrong or that people have no creed as it is a bad thing to have. If your ideology, faith or way of life has no belief and no creed then it is nothing. It is so much straw to be tossed in the wind and burned in the fire. A statement is a statement; a belief a belief. You hold to a bunch of nothings if you hold to no creed.

Those of you who say the Scriptures and true and Christ existed and is good to follow...that is a creed. A belief. A dogma. Are you willing to say "actually Jesus was evil" or "actually the Bible is completely wrong and was written by Satan himself"? No? Then you are dogmatic and close-minded. Then you logically must see others who do not hold to this as heretics. That is fine by me--in fact it's great. What bugs me is that you won't admit it. I admit it-I am dogmatic, close minded and orthodox. I believe that I am right and if you disagree you are wrong. If you hold to even the smallest belief then you are the same as me in all this, and yet you deny it. Absolute Truth exists eternally and beyond all things. If you disagree with it you are a heretic. If I disagree with it I am a heretic. Simple as.

By the way, this is by no means addressed solely to any one particular person in this thread.



Rob

 

[PACKY]

I think many people are missing the point here:
Yes the Scriptures were written by a divine authorship and was inspired by the Grace of God; teachings of Christ and Life of Christ yes by men... However ...The N.C. was written by men not By a Divine Authorship..It is more of a political document then anything, The fcat that they used religion was simply as a means to control the populous and those that dissented. Remember, Constantine was not a good person, he had his son and wife killed....

 

[PACKY]

The Nicene Creed is a basic standard for Christian churches. That it was written by men is no different from the scriptures (including those that record Jesus teachings). The Nicene Creed however summarises standards of faith of the Christian churches and all accept it (the Orthodox church does but it very unhappy over one line)

This is why CF obviously use it as a standard. The statement of faiths such as the Evangelical Alliance include statement as to the authority of the scriptures for all matters of faith and conduct. That includes all the teachings of Jesus as Lord.
If posters think the title should be changed it may tell them where they are with Christainity at the moment. I have no probelm with the Nicene Creed or the EAUK statement of faith.

Christianty is not for us to design, it has already been designed we either buy in or not IMO.

peace

I agree Christianity is and more importantly WAS not for use to design..It has been designed by who? A Roman Emperor? A man who was paid by Constantine to write the early History of the Church? ....
I would rather obey the Laws of God and the Teachings of the Christ then Obey a Creed that was written in Rome to secure and consolidate MORE power for The Romans.
People REALLY need to do some reserch on this creed so they know what they are REALLY reciting in Gods house....

 

[PACKY]

There is a sobering level of politicking involved in the whole process of the Council of Nicaea—before, during, and after—and quite apart from Constantine's role. There is "blood on the floor," so to speak. What are faithful Christians to make of this politically "dirty" process? Doesn't this taint the council and its resulting creed?

In the council, the bishops cooperated with—some would say, were co-opted by—the state. Was the die cast at the council for the state church model that would dominate the church for 1200 years and more?

Before the Council of Nicaea, there were plenty of local baptismal "creeds" that agreed in essentials while varying in details. Why coerce the whole church into accepting a single, rigidly defined creed promulgated by a single council? Was this really necessary?

LET US REMEMBER THE CREED WAS WRITTEN BY MEN....NOT BY DIVINE AUTHORSHIP

BUMP

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

I agree Christianity is and more importantly WAS not for use to design..It has been designed by who? A Roman Emperor? A man who was paid by Constantine to write the early History of the Church? ....
I would rather obey the Laws of God and the Teachings of the Christ then Obey a Creed that was written in Rome to secure and consolidate MORE power for The Romans.
People REALLY need to do some reserch on this creed so they know what they are REALLY reciting in Gods house....

On what basis do you determine what the teachings of Christ were from everything else attached to them? Why are they valid/true but other things are not?How do you determine that the recorded teachings of Jesus weren't by Roman design equally as well?

 

[PACKY]

On what basis do you determine what the teachings of Christ were from everything else attached to them? Why are they valid/true but other things are not?How do you determine that the recorded teachings of Jesus weren't by Roman design equally as well?

There are Greek, Hebrew, aramaic copies of the scripture..I.E. Christs teachings and the Gospels that make up the NT, They throughout time have been considered more or less to be authentic, of course due to translation and human error there has been a certain degree of mis-trtanslations and ommisions, I reccomend that everyone reads the Bible in its original Greek/hebrew form ( of course with english) And your absolutely right, From the Theological classes and seminars that I have attented, The Roman edition as well as the KJV were censored to a degree to take out things that would "threaten" the powerhold of the leaders of the time, ( christ often spoke of freedom and the lifting of oppresion) ...

There is much more historical evidence to show that the N.C. was written by men as a means of monopolizing power in the roman empire.." one god, one faith, one emperor, one empire" was the motto...Constantine had a large role in helping to write what would go into the N.C., the fact simply is that he won the war and one of the spoils that goes with that victory was to write History, that included the History of the Early Christian Church and the N.C.

 

[angela 2]

Is the intention of the people who wrote NC more important than the fact that for centuries it has been used as a summation of Christian doctrine?

Given some of the lunatic contemporary ideas written by people who call themselves Christian, I would think most folks would see NC as rather benign and boring.

Mind you, I'm not trilled with asking people to affirm a creed (I'm a Baptist. It's a non-creedal denomination), but it does cut down on some of the nonsense that would ensue otherwise.

 

[PACKY]

Is the intention of the people who wrote NC more important than the fact that for centuries it has been used as a summation of Christian doctrine?

Given some of the lunatic contemporary ideas written by people who call themselves Christian, I would think most folks would see NC as rather benign and boring.

Mind you, I'm not trilled with asking people to affirm a creed (I'm a Baptist. It's a non-creedal denomination), but it does cut down on some of the nonsense that would ensue otherwise.

So simply because its repeated for centuries means something is ok??
I dont realy buy into that.....

 

[angela 2]

So simply because its repeated for centuries means something is ok??
I dont realy buy into that.....

Not 'repeated,' accepted.' That means a whole lot of Christians found it to represent what they believed. Now I know that's called 'tradition,' and tradition is a dirty word to some people. But not to me. I don't believe that intelligent thinking or faithful living began around the time I was born.

 

[MidnightBlue]

I think many people are missing the point here:
Yes the Scriptures were written by a divine authorship and was inspired by the Grace of God; teachings of Christ and Life of Christ yes by men... However ...The N.C. was written by men not By a Divine Authorship..It is more of a political document then anything,

You give no reason why you say so. Simply asserting that the scriptures were written by divine authorship doesn't make it so. As I said, if one is going to believe in inspired writings, the Creed could be inspired as easily as the scriptures. Why should anybody accept your arbitrary declaration about what is and isn't inspired?

Remember, Constantine was not a good person, he had his son and wife killed....

And David had his mistress's husband killed. Better throw out the Psalms.

 

[MidnightBlue]

There is much more historical evidence to show that the N.C. was written by men as a means of monopolizing power in the roman empire.." one god, one faith, one emperor, one empire" was the motto...Constantine had a large role in helping to write what would go into the N.C., the fact simply is that he won the war and one of the spoils that goes with that victory was to write History, that included the History of the Early Christian Church and the N.C.

You do realize that the canon of scripture was determined by the Nicene Council, don't you? If you consider the works of the Council corrupt, and need to throw out the Creed because of it, you ought to throw out the Bible while you're at it.

 

[Rev. Smith]

In A.D. 312, Constantine won control of the Roman Empire in the battle of Milvian Bridge. Attributing his victory to the intervention of Jesus Christ, he elevated Christianity to favored status in the empire. "One God, one Lord, one faith, one church, one empire, one emperor" became his motto.
To counter a widening rift within the church, Constantine convened a council in Nicaea in A.D. 325. A creed reflecting the position of Alexander and Athanasius was written and signed by a majority of the bishops. Nevertheless, the two parties continued to battle each other. In A.D. 381, a second council met in Constantinople. It adopted a revised and expanded form of the A.D. 325 creed, now known as the Nicene Creed.
Constantine HAd his wife strangled and his Son Murdered, he waited until he was on his death bed efore being baptized as he wanted to rule Rome without the fears of hellfire... He promoted Christianity as a way to monopolize power, he had a heavy influence in what was written in the Nicene creed...
here is a link for some more info: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/conv-const.html
I question to why a christian is to take this oath or to consider this oath sacred, Is a christian not simply a person who follows the teachings of christ? The bible says:



so why would any christian want to be defined by a creed/oath written by men?
Why is it not Good enough to simply live by the teachings and laws Of Christ?

First the counsel's main purpose was to resolve the Arian controversy (Arius proposed that Jesus was not the incarnation of God, but rather of the created order imbued with the sanctity of God)

Second, it is not an "oath", for it contains no promise of action. It is a declaration of creedal princepals, and as such does not run afoul of your (debatable) conclusions about taking oaths.

Constantine converted because he believed that Jesus had blessed his victory in a civil war, that lead him to the throne. He knew little of the nature of the dispute, only that it was divisive (it was, about 40% of the Bishops sided with Arius). A lot of evidance suggests that Constantine didn't much care what the Synod concluded, as long as it reached one. I've never seen any credable evidance (other than unsupported assertions by, usually Protestant, Rome Bashers) that Constantine viewed the church as a vehicle to power. It was very week in those days, hving only come out from being an underground movement in recent years.

The creed serves the very imprtant function now that it did then, it is a concise, clear and simple statement of the Christian faith.

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

The Problem with Creeds

Doy Moyer

http://www.focusmagazine.org/Articles/creedproblems.htm