Nicene Creed

[ArtistEd]

The verse you quoted does NOT say that the dead "go to the sea," when they die. They are already at sea.

Let me rephrase the question.

The dead come out of the sea, out of death, and out of hades. Since only death and hades are cast into the lake of fire, explain who is in the sea, who is in death and who is in hades?

 

[OldShepherd]

Let me rephrase the question.

The dead come out of the sea, out of death, and out of hades. Since only death and hades are cast into the lake of fire, explain who is in the sea, who is in death and who is in hades?

[size=+1]The other alternative is to read ALL the scriptures not just pick out one or two verses which you think proves whatever it is you are trying to prove.

This passage tells of the final judgement. Everyone who ever lived will be gathered before the great white throne for judgment from where ever they were in death, land or sea, or even hell. Who goes to hell at death?[/size]

• 
  Lu 16:23 And in hell he [the rich man] lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom
  24 And he [the rich man] cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

[size=+1]And note in Rev 6:8 two of the angels of the Apocalypse are named "Death" and "Hell." Could it be that these two angels are thrown into the lake of fire in Rev. 20:14?[/size]

• 
  Rev 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
  12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
  20 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
  14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
  
  Re 6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

 

[ArtistEd]

The other alternative is to read ALL the scriptures not just pick out one or two verses which you think proves whatever it is you are trying to prove.

Uncalled for. I was asking you a question about a specific verse in Rev 20

This passage tells of the final judgement.

Final? Judgement-where does it say that. That's a symbolic leap. And if that's the case, then what happens to sinners in the new heavens and new earth?

Isaiah 65
17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. 18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. 19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. 20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

 

[OldShepherd]

Uncalled for. I was asking you a question about a specific verse in Rev 20

[size=+1]If I misunderstood, I apologize but merely reviewing the verse in-context and reading other verses which deal with the same thing, there is no contradiction, or problem, and no need to resort to metaphorical, spiritual, etc. as you implied that I would. Which was also uncalled for. If you want to ask questions, do so, without the sarcasm.[/size]

Final? Judgement-where does it say that. That's a symbolic leap. And if that's the case, then what happens to sinners in the new heavens and new earth?

[size=+1]Yes, final judgement. Please read the scripture in-context. "And I saw a great white throne, (Rev 20:11) And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and the dead were judged . . . according to their works (vs. 12). And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. (vs. 14)" Then see, [/size]

Re 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.​

[size=+1]Not only are "death" and "hell" cast into the lake of fire but also everyone whose name is not in the book of life. And I am not aware of any other judgement, in scripture, after this one.[/size]

Isaiah 65:
17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. 18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. 19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. 20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

[size=+1]What about the new heaven and earth? Read carefully the scripture you posted, what Isaiah 65:20 says, "There shall be no more thence [there]. . . but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed." All that is necessary to correctly understand this passage is read it in-context and compare it to other scriptures with the same subject.

Does this say that the 100 year old sinner is in the new heaven and new earth? No, it does not. It says there shall be NO MORE THERE, i.e. the new heaven and earth, the sinner [who] shall be accursed. Also elsewhere, scripture clearly states, the cursed shall not be part of God's kingdom.[/size]

Ps 37:22 For such as be blessed of him shall inherit the earth; and they that be cursed of him shall be cut off.

Mt 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:​

 

[ArtistEd]

...Which was also uncalled for. If you want to ask questions, do so, without the sarcasm.

Fair enough, we should all try our best to answer with "meekness and kindness" despite our temptation to do otherwise.

What about the new heaven and earth? Read carefully the scripture you posted, what Isaiah 65:20 says, "There shall be no more thence [there]. . . but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed." All that is necessary to correctly understand this passage is read it in-context and compare it to other scriptures with the same subject.

Does this say that the 100 year old sinner is in the new heaven and new earth? No, it does not. It says there shall be NO MORE THERE, i.e. the new heaven and earth, the sinner [who] shall be accursed. Also elsewhere, scripture clearly states, the cursed shall not be part of God's kingdom

.
I believe that it does, and these commentaries and studies, found at Crosswalk.com with the possible exception of the Geneva Study Bible, would agree with me on that point. And notice how they refer to the "new heavens and new earth"



From Commentary Critical and Explanatory
on the Whole Bible found at Crosswalk.com

Isaiah: 20. The longevity of men in the first age of the world shall be enjoyed again.
thence--from that time forward.
infant of days--that is, an infant who shall only complete a few days; short-lived.
filled . . . days--None shall die without attaining a full old age.
child . . . die . . . hundred years--that is "he that dieth an hundred years old shall die a mere child" [LOWTH].
sinner . . . hundred . . . be accursed--"The sinner that dieth at an hundred years shall be deemed accursed," that is, his death at so early an age, which in those days the hundredth year will be regarded, just as if it were mere childhood, shall be deemed the effect of God's special visitation in wrath [ROSENMULLER]. This passage proves that the better age to come on earth, though much superior to the present will not be a perfect state; sin and death shall have place in it (compare Revelation 20:7,8), but much less frequently than now.

From the Geneva Study Bible of 1599 found a Crosswalk.com

65:17 For, behold, I create y new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

(y) I will so altar and change the state of my church, that it will seem to dwell in a new world.

65:20 There shall be no more from there an infant of days, nor an old man that hath z not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner [being] a an hundred years old shall be accursed.

(z) Meaning, in this wonderful restoration of the Church there would be no weakness of youth, nor infirmities of age, but all would be fresh and flourishing: and this is accomplished in the heavenly Jerusalem, when all sins will cease, and the tears will be wiped away.
(a) By which he shows that the infidels and unrepentant sinners have no part of this benediction.


Matthew Henry

If these promises were in part fulfilled when the Jews, after their return out of captivity, were settled in peace in their own land and brought as it were into a new world, yet they were to have their full accomplishment in the gospel church, militant first and at length triumphant...

Old men who have their hearts upon the world have never filled their days, never have enough of this world, but would still continue longer in it. But that man dies old, and satur dierum—full of days, who, with Simeon, having seen God’s salvation, desires now to depart in peace. 2. Unbelievers shall be unsatisfied and unhappy in life, though it be ever so long. The sinner, though he live to a hundred years old, shall be accursed. His living so long shall be no token to him of the divine favour and blessing, nor shall it be any shelter to him from the divine wrath and curse. The sentence he lies under will certainly be executed, and his long life is but a long reprieve; nay, it is itself a curse to him, for the longer he lives the more wrath he treasures up against the day of wrath and the more sins he will have to answer for.


John Wesley's Explanatory Notes
on the Whole Bible

65:17 I create - I am about wholly to change the state not only of my people, but to bring a new face upon the world, which shall abide until a new heavens and earth appear, in which shall dwell nothing but righteousness. Not be remembered - That state of things shall be so glorious, that the former state of my people shall not be remembered.
65:18 You - The church, as well under the gospel, as under the law.
65:20 An infant - Those that were now children, shall die at a great age. But - Yet none of these things shall be of any advantage to wicked men, but if any of them shall live to be an hundred years old, yet they shall die accursed.

 

[frost]

"We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

If this is referring to salvation, I'm afraid I cannot subscribe to this part of the creed.

Ephesians 2
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

 

[Jerome]

"We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

If this is referring to salvation, I'm afraid I cannot subscribe to this part of the creed.

Ephesians 2
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

No this is referring to an early dispute among Christians over how many times someone should be baptized. Many Christians, including St. Cyprian, felt that heretics had to be rebaptized when they came back to the Faith. Many other Christians, including the Pope, felt that one baptism was all that was needed. If people sinned or left the Faith, they weren't to be baptized a second time when they repented and came back to the Faith. The Pope's side won, and the phrase was inserted into the Nicene Creed that there is only "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

 

[Jerome]

I have removed my comments as I feel they were rash and uncalled for, The catholics are followers in christ just with more snars in their own church then others,I am truly sadden by your blindness in seeing the reason the catholic church can not be the one church of God, and inso I hope you one day see the true church build into the hearts of every true follower in christ.

God bless,
DaTsar

Well reasoned arguments based on Sacred Scripture and history are always welcome. That is the apostolic spirit. To the extent my comments were illogical or ad hominum, I apologize.

Don't you think it's an even more powerful argument in favor of Catholicism to say that the Catholic Church has some bad eggs in it ("snars" I believe was the word you used)? Christ prophesied that there would come false prophets and false teachers who would try to harm His Flock. When you see these problems in the Catholic Church, don't you think that's additional evidence it's the Church Christ founded? Christ's prophecies are fulfilled in it.

God bless,
Jerome

 

[frost]

No this is referring to an early dispute among Christians over how many times someone should be baptized. Many Christians, including St. Cyprian, felt that heretics had to be rebaptized when they came back to the Faith. Many other Christians, including the Pope, felt that one baptism was all that was needed. If people sinned or left the Faith, they weren't to be baptized a second time when they repented and came back to the Faith. The Pope's side won, and the phrase was inserted into the Nicene Creed that there is only "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

It still implies (heck it says,) that we receive forgiveness of sins by baptism. This is highly debatable and not the belief of most Protestants. Now, if it does not mean what it says, it should be re-written. Wouldn't hurt to take out the catholic part either as I'm sure many people misinterpret the contextual meaning of the word.

 

[Oblio]

Some translations (Orthodox) read remission rather than forgiveness.

The misunderstanding of the term catholic (or any other term for that matter) is a poor reason to change a 1500 year old Creed that has stood the test of truth and time. Heck, many people today think Apostolic means a Pentecostal Holy roller church.

 

[Jerome]

Some translations (Orthodox) read remission rather than forgiveness.

The misunderstanding of the term catholic (or any other term for that matter) is a poor reason to change a 1500 year old Creed that has stood the test of truth and time. Heck, many people today think Apostolic means a Pentecostal Holy roller church.

Everyone understands the term "Catholic" perfectly well in the Creed. It refers to the universal Church, or the Church whose Faith is held by the majority of Christians. It's not the Catholic Church's fault that both of those definitions just happen to apply to it and have applied to it for approximately 2000 years now.

Most Protestants (certainly mainstream Protestants) would agree that through baptism and the blood of the Cross, Christians receive remission of their sins. The point the Creed is trying to make is that you only get baptized once as a Christian. Christians don't go back to the baptismal font every time they sin. They ask God's forgiveness instead.

On the second point, I have to agree with my Orthodox friend that just because some people don't understand a term is a poor reason to change a 1500 year old Creed. It is the faith of our fathers -- the seal of orthodoxy. (I guess Catholics and Greek Orthodox do agree on some things.)

Blessings,
Jerome

 

[Oblio]

I know the Catholic Church has done much for God; but God has even used Babylon to do his will.

Are you calling the Catholic Church Babylon, or just drawing a parrallel ?

 

[Oblio]

This quote intentionally left blank

 

[Achichem]

Are you calling the Catholic Church Babylon, or just drawing a parrallel ?

Drawing a parallel

 

[frost]

Most Protestants (certainly mainstream Protestants) would agree that through baptism and the blood of the Cross, Christians receive remission of their sins.

I'd have to disagree. Most Protestants view baptism as an outward expression of an inward change within them. It's an act of obedience, and does not remove or remit our sins. Jesus paid for our sins on the cross. Again, it's our faith, not works that save us.

On the second point, I have to agree with my Orthodox friend that just because some people don't understand a term is a poor reason to change a 1500 year old Creed.

I was saying the part about the word catholic being changed, mainly tongue-in-cheek. I really wouldn't care if they changed it or they didn't.

 

[Jerome]

I'd have to disagree. Most Protestants view baptism as an outward expression of an inward change within them. It's an act of obedience, and does not remove or remit our sins. Jesus paid for our sins on the cross. Again, it's our faith, not works that save us.



I was saying the part about the word catholic being changed, mainly tongue-in-cheek. I really wouldn't care if they changed it or they didn't.

Baptism remits sins and makes us children of God. But the death of Jesus Christ on the cross saved us from our sins. These two viewpoints are not mutually exclusive. How? Baptism is the outward sign of the inward grace obtained by Christ's death on the cross. Christ's grace, earned from His death on the cross, is applied at Baptism to make us new persons in Christ. Our sins are forgiven and we are a new creation. It is through baptism that this is done -- whether by desire, blood, or water. At least that's how my grandfather, an Anglican priest, explained it to me.

Moreover, faith without charity towards our neighbor will not save us. The devils have faith in God and tremble. When St. Paul refers to the inability of works to save us, the reference is to Old Testament rituals like circumcision and abstinence from swine. St. Paul would be shocked to learn that Martin Luther had interpreted this phrase to mean that Christians do not have to live holy lives in accord with the Gospel to be saved -- that faith alone sufficed. The concept is totally foreign to Christian thought until the 1500's.

Incidentally, the point made about the distinction between "forgiveness of sins" and "remission of sins" is a good one. In Latin, the word is "remissionem." I guess the English translators didn't do such a good job.

 

[Serapha]

I communicated with someone this morning regarding the Nicene Creed.

Am I the only one who thinks it's ludicrous for some people to use an unscriptural creed as to say who is a Christian or who isn't? I sure hope you all out there aren't like that. I'd sure hope the members of these forums are more charitible than that.

The Nicene Creed, an extrabiblical doctrine, does NOT set the standard on who is a Christian. It is indirectly/discreetly/politely saying someone is not a Christian because they do not confess belief in a creed not of the holy scriptures.

Anyone who denies someone's Christianity based on the Nicene Creed ought to feel ashamed. Not just for indirectly implying someone is not a Christian based on the creed, but purposely continuing to blind themselves from the simple truth that a doctrine developed after the scriptures in the Bible are of NO AUTHORITY on who is a Christian.

Does anyone here believe in the apostles' doctrine? It's in Acts 2:38. On the day of Pentecost, Peter commanded three things the convicted Jews to do in response to their conviction when they accepted Jesus as being Lord. Peter, with the keys to the kingdom as given to him in Matthew 16:19, preached to repent, and to be baptized in the name of the Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and that they shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. The Jews gladly receive His word, were baptized, and THEN were 3,000 sould added unto them as Acts 2:41 says. Acts 2:42 even says they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine, meaning Peter's God-given commands were continued to be preached. Years later the same was continued to be preached as the rest of Acts show (Acts 8:16-17+22, 10:44-48, 19:2-6). The experience was not just for those in the days of the apostles, but it's for us today, too. No new creeds or denominations will be able to remove the truths that Jesus wanted to be preached starting at Jerusalem (Luke 24:47).

Only scripture can set the standard on how people became born-again Christians. Does any of this information make you think? Can you not see how the unbiblical Nicene Creed is seperating people from believing and obeying the gospel as first set forth in the Bible? Does anyone believe God's promise of the Holy Ghost is for you as Acts 2:39 says it is? My heart is burdened for people who object the truths Jesus died on the cross for us to know.

In His truth,
Stephen

Hi there!





I hope you don't mind that I jump in at 100 postings.... it should be noted that the Southern Baptist Convention has refused to accept the creeds as a part of their doctrine, first in 1925, again in 1968, and still again in 2000. If there is a Southern Baptist posting on the Christian Only forums, then they are deceiving either their denomination by claiming membership or they are deceiving this site.


I am not a Southern Baptist, but I am aware that very few baptists ascribe to the creeds, but I am certain there are probably hundreds posting as "Christians" here.



I believe what the contents of the Nicene Creed states, but it isn't a measure of anyone's Christianity.


~malaka~

 

[Serapha]

The Nicene Creed says the same thing as the Apostle's Creed, just in more words. It expresses belief in God, his Son Jesus, his immaculate conception, death and ascension, the Holy Spirit, and the marks of the Church, to be brief. It's the religion in a nutshell, and I and the Church agree with everything it says.

I see no reason not to believe it.

BrianV

Hi there!



No actually there is quite a difference between the Nicene creed and the Apostle's creed. Read them.


~malaka~

 

[Der Alte]

Hi there!


I hope you don't mind that I jump in at 100 postings.... it should be noted that the Southern Baptist Convention has refused to accept the creeds as a part of their doctrine, first in 1925, again in 1968, and still again in 2000. If there is a Southern Baptist posting on the Christian Only forums, then they are deceiving either their denomination by claiming membership or they are deceiving this site.

I am not a Southern Baptist, but I am aware that very few baptists ascribe to the creeds, but I am certain there are probably hundreds posting as "Christians" here.

I believe what the contents of the Nicene Creed states, but it isn't a measure of anyone's Christianity.
~malaka~

[size=+1]Your post is not entirely true. The President of the Southern Baptist Convention, who is elected annually, and none of the boards or committees have any governing or controlling authority. All Southern Baptist churches are autonomous, self-governing. Any decisions by the annual convention, approved by vote of a majority of messengers attending the convention, are advisory only.

The dates you mentioned are the dates the Baptist Faith and Message (BFM) was written, 1925, and revised. The convention does not and cannot impose any creed or confession on any of its members and to my knowledge no church, within the convention, requires adherence to any creed or confession, including the BFM, as a test of faith or fellowship. I have never heard of any policy or decision of the SBC or any teaching of a Southern Baptist church that contradicts the Nicene or Apostle’s creeds. Here is the preamble of the most recent BFM .[/size]

With the 1963 committee, we have been guided in our work by the 1925 "statement of the historic Baptist conception of the nature and function of confessions of faith in our religious and denominational life . . . ." It is, therefore, quoted in full as a part of this report to the Convention:

(1) That they constitute a consensus of opinion of some Baptist body, large or small, for the general instruction and guidance of our own people and others concerning those articles of the Christian faith which are most surely held among us. They are not intended to add anything to the simple conditions of salvation revealed in the New Testament, viz., repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.

(2) That we do not regard them as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality or infallibility. As in the past so in the future, Baptists should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time.

(3) That any group of Baptists, large or small, have the inherent right to draw up for themselves and publish to the world a confession of their faith whenever they may think it advisable to do so.

(4) That the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.

(5) That they are statements of religious convictions, drawn from the Scriptures, and are not to be used to hamper freedom

http://www.utm.edu/martinarea/fbc/bfm/0.html
​

 

[Der Alte]

Hi there!



No actually there is quite a difference between the Nicene creed and the Apostle's creed. Read them.

~malaka~

[size=+1]I have read them. The two creeds are not identical but there is nothing in either that contradicts the other.[/size]