NICENE CREED; should a christian really take this OATH?

[Chrysalis Kat]

Once again, I don't think CF isn't trying to define Christianity for all time in all situations. All it is trying to do is to maintain some semblence of order here. The use of NC in this situation has a pragmatic function.

Anyone ever been on a board that doesn't do this? Ever see the unending thread about how one can be a Christian and not believe in the Trinity? It becomes nuisance posting.

I find the use of the NC in this situation to have a divisive function. I belong to a Christian web board where member check off whether or not they self indentify as a Christian. Now that is a site that truely unites ALL Christians.
This definition works amazingly well. Of course, it's is a board with mature Christians that know that only God has access to what is in a person's heart and we don't quibble over the particulars of doctrine and dogma. Believe me, that list is a refreshing break!

 

[ahab]

Hi Chrysalis Kat

God has access to what is in a person's heart and we don't quibble over the particulars of doctrine and dogma. Believe me, that list is a refreshing break!

How do you know God has access to what is in a person's heart, because you believe what the Bible tells you and the Holy Spirit convicts you or what? Same with the Nicene Creed is says what we know has been revealed to us from God through Christ Jesus, not what we feel God might be like through our own feelings.

The peace of God which is in Christ Jesus is in Christ Jesus and not my feelings, 1 Phil 4:7, Col 3;15

 

[angela 2]

I find the use of the NC in this situation to have a divisive function. I belong to a Christian web board where member check off whether or not they self indentify as a Christian. Now that is a site that truely unites ALL Christians.
This definition works amazingly well. Of course, it's is a board with mature Christians that know that only God has access to what is in a person's heart and we don't quibble over the particulars of doctrine and dogma. Believe me, that list is a refreshing break!

Great! Tell me where I can find these mature Christians.

What do you talk about?

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

Amazing! If ya can’t twist one scripture to say what you want then go ahead and take two or more and glue them together to get them to say what you want.

Do I really need a proof text the fact that we cannot see inside other people’s hearts and minds??? If you don’t know God then my comments are irrelevant. If one has a real relationship with God they you don’t even need proof text, however creatively used.

 

[Rochir]

The mere fact that the Nicene Creed is not mentioned in the bible and that Jesus disciples and followers during his lifetime certainly didn't have to sign papers saying "Yup, I believe this, that and the other thing!" should be good enough to show how unimportant creeds can be!

"Follow Me!" - That is the only "creed" one needs, and which shold define who is Christian and who is not!

 

[Rev. Smith]

The mere fact that the Nicene Creed is not mentioned in the bible and that Jesus disciples and followers during his lifetime certainly didn't have to sign papers saying "Yup, I believe this, that and the other thing!" should be good enough to show how unimportant creeds can be!

"Follow Me!" - That is the only "creed" one needs, and which shold define who is Christian and who is not!

Sola scripture and a whole lot of other doctrines. The creed is not mentioned in the Bible because it is the product of revelation, a boiling down of the essential truths of the faith to an easily accesable and understanble core. A very valuale thing in a time when most people couldn't read the scripture; as it is in our time whan many still can't, and many others don't because of a variety of reasons from laziness to the desire to learn from a teacher rather than from a book.

By your logic I may simply ignore anything postulated, proposed or learned by the faith after the Pentecost, if the standard is only those things that Jesus did (and we know about). Which, of course, means that all of Paul's writings become optional - since Jesus never read them, or reccomended them to his followers.

Personally I'll keep the creed and canon rather get on the very slipperly slope you propose.

 

[Scholar in training]

who is questioning his divinity?

i never said i agreed with serving more then one god, why make that assumption?

I didn't assume that you think it is OK to serve more than one god. I was trying to get you to think. If serving more than one god is unacceptable, then so is misunderstanding God's nature; Jesus did clarify both.

I brought it up because several of the people pushing for acceptance as a Christian and who want access to the CO fora are people that also deny Jesus' divinity, or subscribe to any number of age-old heresies about God's nature that were condemned by the Church from the beginning. You didn't know this about the people you are trying to offer inclusion?

 

[PACKY]

I didn't assume that you think it is OK to serve more than one god. I was trying to get you to think. If serving more than one god is unacceptable, then so is misunderstanding God's nature; Jesus did clarify both.

I brought it up because several of the people pushing for acceptance as a Christian and who want access to the CO fora are people that also deny Jesus' divinity, or subscribe to any number of age-old heresies about God's nature that were condemned by the Church from the beginning. You didn't know this about the people you are trying to offer inclusion?

Now we are talking about heresies Now that you brought that up..Constantine ( the same man who played a large role in the writing of the N.C. ) didnt like anything that the Christian Gnostics stood for..( feminine equality etc....)
So their teachings were made hearsay and they were slowly killed off.....
heres a link:

http://www.gnosis.org/library.html

many teachings Etc..were made to be hearsay as they did not fit in with the Constantines overall plan and goal of " One God..One faith, One Emperor..One emprire.."....Like I said before one of the spoild of war at that time was that the victor was able to write the history.

 

[Scholar in training]

Now we are talking about heresies Now that you brought that up..Constantine ( the same man who played a large role in the writing of the N.C. ) didnt like anything that the Christian Gnostics stood for..( feminine equality etc....)
So their teachings were made hearsay and they were slowly killed off.....
heres a link:

http://www.gnosis.org/library.html

many teachings Etc..were made to be hearsay as they did not fit in with the Constantines overall plan and goal of " One God..One faith, One Emperor..One emprire.."....Like I said before one of the spoild of war at that time was that the victor was able to write the history.

I understand what you're saying here, but most of it is red herring. Despite any of Constantine's flaws, we are talking about God's nature, not women's rights. God's nature, Christ's devinity, etc. are not relative, and they are not compromisable points because they are defining aspects of the faith. Someone who doesn't believe in Christ's divinity but wants to be a Christian is like someone who doesn't believe that God is the only God but still wants to become a Jew. It just doesn't work.

 

[PACKY]

I understand what you're saying here, but most of it is red herring. Despite any of Constantine's flaws, we are talking about God's nature, not women's rights. God's nature, Christ's devinity, etc. are not relative, and they are not compromisable points because they are defining aspects of the faith. Someone who doesn't believe in Christ's divinity but wants to be a Christian is like someone who doesn't believe that God is the only God but still wants to become a Jew. It just doesn't work.

Why would you call it Red Herring?

It seems to be backed up with historical evidence.....

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

By your logic I may simply ignore anything postulated, proposed or learned by the faith after the Pentecost, if the standard is only those things that Jesus did (and we know about). Which, of course, means that all of Paul's writings become optional - since Jesus never read them, or reccomended them to his followers.

Sounds like a MARVELOUS idea to me.
Why should Paul's writings carry in more weight than any other Christian's writings that never ever knew Jesus Christ in the flesh?

 

[Scholar in training]

Why would you call it Red Herring?

It seems to be backed up with historical evidence.....

Red herring means that it is off-topic, not involved with what we're talking about now. I don't see how Constantine's actions should affect the discussion as long as the creed formed at Nicea is biblical.

 

[Rochir]

By your logic I may simply ignore anything postulated, proposed or learned by the faith after the Pentecost, if the standard is only those things that Jesus did (and we know about). Which, of course, means that all of Paul's writings become optional - since Jesus never read them, or reccomended them to his followers.

Yup, that would be the logical consequence. And would that be bad? Maybe not! I just know that history clearly shows how much men has influenced that which is given to us about Jesus and his teachings, and thus all thsoe addendums are quite fallible and open for discussion!

 

[PACKY]

Sounds like a MARVELOUS idea to me.
Why should Paul's writings carry in more weight than any other Christian's writings that never ever knew Jesus Christ in the flesh?

Good Question C.K. ........