Nicene Creed

[parousia70]

Rev 21:3-5a KJV And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

Hmmm...

The tabernacle of God is with men now.
He dwells with us now.
We already are His people.
God Himself is already with us.
He is our God now.

Do I understand you to be saying I am wrong about this?

 

[BrianV]

"So you are saying that the creeds are only temporary, and will eventually become useless, obsloete and unnecessary to the Christian?"

Why do you make it sound so negative? Whether the Creeds are temporary, to me, is somewhat irrelevant, seeing how it is what we believe (that which is expressed in the Creed) is what will remain with us forever.

Brian_V

 

[ArtistEd]

Where did you ever get this idea ?

The Creed was written by a Church council, not by St. Constantine. The formulation of the Creed was overseen (inspired if you will) by the Holy Spirit.

For those of you who hold to the Creeds as the essential guide to the Christian Faith, and inspired by the Holy Spirit, you may do well to consider this:

1. The Creeds don't disallow an open homosexual to be ordained Bishop of the Episcopal Church. As a matter of fact, the Metropolitan Church holds to the Creeds http://www.jesusmcc.org/about_us/belief.html

2. The Creeds say nothing about repenting from your sins and being born again. I don't know, but did Jesus say anything else was a must?

 

[Philip]

For those of you who hold to the Creeds as the essential guide to the Christian Faith, and inspired by the Holy Spirit, you may do well to consider this:

1. The Creeds don't disallow an open homosexual to be ordained Bishop of the Episcopal Church. As a matter of fact, the Metropolitan Church holds to the Creeds http://www.jesusmcc.org/about_us/belief.html

The Creed was written to describe the nature of God. It was not meant as a discussion of morals.

2. The Creeds say nothing about repenting from your sins and being born again. I don't know, but did Jesus say anything else was a must?

Actually, it does mention being born again:

I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.

However, the purpose of the Creed was to describe the nature of God. It is not meant as a discussion of the means of salvation.

 

[ArtistEd]

[

QUOTE=Philip]The Creed was written to describe the nature of God. It was not meant as a discussion of morals.

What better description of the nature of God than the Law of God?

My real concern with Creeds, is that one can read and memorize, believe they are the essentials and sign their name at the bottom and still have no clue as to what it means to be born again. Therefore you end up with homosexual denominations who hold to the Creeds.

My second beef, is of course, the errors regarding the future Coming of Christ and Resurrection of the Dead in a corporate sense that is. At least according to Luke 21:20-22 as well as the rest of the New Testament writers.

 

[Philip]

What better description of the nature of God than the Law of God?

The law of God does not identify God. Much of the Jewish and Islamic laws are identical to Christian Law, yet they do not describe God.

My real concern with Creeds, is that one can read and memorize, believe they are the essentials and sign their name at the bottom and still have no clue as to what it means to be born again. Therefore you end up with homosexual denominations who hold to the Creeds.

Then your concern is not with the Creed. Rather, it is with the way some people (mis)use the Creed

My second beef, is of course, the errors regarding the future Coming of Christ and Resurrection of the Dead in a corporate sense that is.

The fact that you do not believe the entirety of the Creed does not invalidate the Creed.

 

[deleeuw]

I am confused as to why people place so much emphasis on the Nicene Creed. It was written long after Jesus' time on earth. What makes it any more "divine" or valid than any other statement made by any Christian that has lived for the past couple thousand years???

 

[Philip]

I am confused as to why people place so much emphasis on the Nicene Creed. It was written long after Jesus' time on earth. What makes it any more "divine" or valid than any other statement made by any Christian that has lived for the past couple thousand years???

It is the belief of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches that the Nicene Creed is inspired, as are the rest of the Ecumenical Councils.

 

[mo.mentum]

It is the belief of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches that the Nicene Creed is inspired, as are the rest of the Ecumenical Councils.

But they have nothing to do with what Jesus himself was teaching.

Why were not Abraham and Moses told of the Trinity or Original Sin? Were all poeple who lived before the advent of Christ doomed anyway?

 

[parousia70]

Why do you make it sound so negative? Whether the Creeds are temporary, to me, is somewhat irrelevant, seeing how it is what we believe (that which is expressed in the Creed) is what will remain with us forever.

Brian_V

So you believe there will never be a time when Christ's coming will be "past"?

You seem to be implying such when you say your belief that Christ has not yet come (as expressed in the creeds) will "remain with you forever", meaning that, even after any "future coming of Christ" you will be creedally bound to continue to declare it has not yet happened, and you must continue to do so for all eternity.

How does that work exactly?

 

[mo.mentum]

What if i tell you that the Kingdom of God has come. If we look at the book of Daniel and re-examine his prophecies in light of certain historical events, we can see this.

I won't get into this here.. WHat would be the right forum for this?

 

[parousia70]

What if i tell you that the Kingdom of God has come.

You'd be right.

If we look at the book of Daniel and re-examine his prophecies in light of certain historical events, we can see this.

Again, right on the money.

I won't get into this here.. What would be the right forum for this?

This (Unorthodox Theo. Doctrines) is indeed the right forum for discussion of such preteristic notions as yours.
All you need to do is start a new thread called "The kingdom of God has Come", and we can discuss it further.

God Bless!

 

[Jerome]

But they have nothing to do with what Jesus himself was teaching.

Why were not Abraham and Moses told of the Trinity or Original Sin? Were all poeple who lived before the advent of Christ doomed anyway?

On the contrary, the Nicene Creed has everything to do with what Jeses Himself taught:

The Nicene Creed professes "We believe in one God, the Father the Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth." Jesus Christ taught this.

The Nicene Creed professes "We believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord." The Bible bears witness to this.

The Nicene Creed professes "We believe in the Holy Spirit the Lord the Giver of Life." Jesus Christ promised that he would send the Holy Spirit on the Apostles, which He did at Pentecost.

The Nicene Creed professes "We believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." St. Paul preached One faith, One baptism. Jesus Christ taught His Church to be Holy. Jesus Christ commissioned His Church to preach to all nations (i.e. to be universal or Catholic). (Incidentally, is there any other Church besides the Catholic Church whose leader has faced the criticism of the entire world and condemned homosexual relationships? Which church gets all the heat when it defends the sanctity of marriage, condemns abortion, condemns promiscuity, etc.? The media always goes after the Catholic Church. The Devil knows who the real enemy is.) And finally, Jesus Christ established His Church on the Apostles.

The Nicene Creed professes "the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting." All truths that the Bible bears witness to.

In short, there is not a single word of the Nicene Creed that is not fully supported by the Bible.

In response to the question about Abraham and Moses. While Abraham and Moses may not have understood completely the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity or Original Sin, they understood it vaguely. God says when He creates man, "Let US make man in our image;" not "me," but "us." Here you see the plural of the Blessed Trinity. The LORD rains down fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah from the LORD out of Heaven. Yet, there are not two LORDs. Again, the Blessed Trinity shines forth.

The Nicene Creed summarizes what Jesus Christ's early followers believed. It is a "sign" that could be said by His early followers to distinguish themselves from those who did not follow Jesus Christ. Just as we have signs in the military to distinguish different soldiers, so the Nicene Creed was a sign to distinguish the soldiers of Christ from the soldiers of the heretics. Each phrase is a shibboleth, a statement that someone who wasn't a follower of Christ could not say. "Begotten not made," "one in being with the Father," these are eternal truths my friends -- truths that existed before the Bible was written and that will exist to eternity. It is the Spirit of Truth that uttered them.

 

[parousia70]

In short, there is not a single word of the Nicene Creed that is not fully supported by the Bible.....these are eternal truths my friends -- truths that existed before the Bible was written and that will exist to eternity.

Except that the Bible mandates that the 2nd coming was to happen in the 1st century, therefore the 4th century creedal expectation of:
"He shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead"
is not "fully supported by the Bible" or could possibly be an "eternal truth" as you claim.

God Bless

 

[OldShepherd]

Except that the Bible mandates that the 2nd coming was to happen in the 1st century, therefore the 4th century creedal expectation of:
"He shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead"
is not "fully supported by the Bible" or could possibly be an "eternal truth" as you claim.

God Bless

[size=+1]This is incorrect the Bible does not mandate this. Many of the "proof texts" cited by Preterists, to support their views, are misinterpreted. Also, when parts of the "proof texts" do not fit Preterist views, then they are said to be "metaphorical, symbolic, spiritual, figurative", etc. For example, the thousand years in Revelation chapter 20, what does it mean? No one has been able to answer that question yet.[/size]

 

[parousia70]

Yes but what are your thoughts on "He shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead" being an "eternal truth" as the previous poster "jerome" claimed?

While I, and many others on this board, are intimately aware of your default position of objection to any preterist prooftexts...

(to my knowledge you have not demonstrated any agreement with any preterist prooftext, partial or full, hense my use of "default position", if I am misinformed, and there are one or 2 eschatological points you find yourself and we preterists in agreement, I apologize for the generalization, and would be grateful if you pointed those areas of agreement out to me, but from my experience interacting with you, I believe it is indeed "generally true")

....anyway...even though you included it in your quote of me, I noticed you chose against commenting on that part of my post challenging the "eternal truth" of that particluar creedal statement.

Do you, like the poster jerome, believe the creedal proclamation of "He shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead" will remain true and unchanged or unchangable, for eternity?

 

[parousia70]

This is incorrect the Bible does not mandate this. Many of the "proof texts" cited by Preterists, to support their views, are misinterpreted.

This is an opinion, and not fact as OS implied, and an opinion which I believe scripture does not support.

As we are discussing in the preterist thread, Jesus promised to return to 1st century Sardis "as a thief" if they did not watch for His coming. (Revelation 3:3) Jesus could not lie.

We know there is only one coming of Christ "as a thief" prophesied in scripture, and it is the coming of Christ that is simultainous with the "day of the Lord" in the NT.

This coming is taught to ocourr at an appointed time, and would overtake those not watching "as a thief". (Matt 24:42, 43, 25:13, Mark 13:33, 35, Luke 21:36, 1 Peter 4:7, Revelation 3:3)

Jesus could not have told those real air breathing, blood pumping 1st century Christians at the Church of Sardis that if they did not watch, He would come TO THEM "as a thief" if the day of the lord coming "as a thief" was not ordained to take place in their 1st century time.

No scripturally honoring refutation of this fact has been, or I believe can be, provided.

Jesus came to Sardis, overtaking those not watching "as a thief", while a few were found worthy and were not overtaken "as a thief" at Christ's coming to them, in perfect harmony with all other teaching of how the "day of the lord coming as a thief" would effect those not watching as opposed to those who watched.

The position put forth By Old Shepp and others that the "Day of the lord coming of Christ" could be postponed or delayed by the act of "watching for it", is taught nowhere in scripture.

The preterist position is here vindicated by Christ's own words, and we may teach no other interpratation.

 

[Achichem]

This is the one reason why I find the creed wrong to say:
Is it bad just because of this, no but I will not say it because I would be lying if I did.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

I believe that there never was, nor ever will be one(until christ returns), Christian church,

That is not Gods plan; too much power in one place is too tempting for the devil.

 

[Philip]

I believe that there never was, nor ever will be one(until christ returns), Christian church,

Christ disagrees with you:

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

Christ founded one Church. Further, He prayed that it would remain one:

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.


St Paul also disagrees with you:

1 Corinthians 12:12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ.

That is not Gods plan;

Cite?

too much power in one place is too tempting for the devil.

That might be a problem except for the fact that Christ promised that the powers of death would not prevail.

 

[Achichem]

Christ disagrees with you:

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

The Two diffrences in churchs(beliefs) both trace to Peters church
the main diffrece being
[Sunday worship]
[Sabbath worship]

but if you are right,which I don't believe you are.then I am afride we have to go to the church movement that is based on Christ teachings and I could then argue on how Sunday worshipers are the dead movement.

*only if there could be only one church would I go on to say that Sunday worshipers are the dead movement*

Christ founded one Church. Further, He prayed that it would remain one:

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.

Jesus knew man would disagree, he know Christians could not stay together under one Church authority.Second He says "in thy name" which could just mean "christian" or follower of christ, which we all are and all true followers accept one another as such.

St Paul also disagrees with you:

1 Corinthians 12:12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ.

He was pleading, seeing with his own eyes the disagreements of men.

That might be a problem except for the fact that Christ promised that the powers of death would not prevail.

I would agree with you, If I saw any legitmecy in what the church in rome says on the teachings of christ.