The Nicene Creed - line by line

[paul becke]

I was only examining the Church that is mentioned in the Creed. I dont think it will turn into a debate because its clear that the Church referred to in the Creed is not the RC but is the universal Church that the apostles established. I only posted the RC link because that's where i found the definition of the word catholic.

Wrong. I won't say more for the reason stated.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

I don't think you understand the concept of the Trinity, three persons, one God.

They each do have different qualities/characteristics.

Earlier i suggested that perhaps we can understand trinity by examining ourselves, after all we are made in Gods image. We have a spirit, soul and a body. So maybe that is helpful in understanding the trinity. This is just my opinion.

 

[paul becke]

It should be noted that the love of man and wife does make them "one flesh", and other beings are created out of that union.

However, it is not a personification of that love. as though their love for each other were itself a distinct person. God creates, parents, like our Heavenly Father begets his Son, beget their children. It seems as if we are each currently the last in a long unbroken line of life, of begotten people, going back to Adam and Eve. It's kind of an eerie thought, to me, although very pleasing. It explains why we nherit in our flesh the Original Sin of our first parents, in a way that each being created de novo by God.

And, at least in term of 'the children of light', it seems to be a beautiful earthly prefiguring of the True Vine in heaven, the Mystical Body of Christ - with the Second Adam at its head! Only, there, the sap that flows through us will be just the Holy Spirit, where here our flesh is vivified by the mortal human blood in our bodies, as well.

I've just checked in online dictionaries and thesauruses and a number of synonyms and phrases are given, but not the word 'create'. Remember, 'begotten, not made', n the Creed?

 

[prodromos]

I don't think you understand the concept of the Trinity, three persons, one God.

They each do have different qualities/characteristics.

Those differences are described in the creed.
The Son is begotten of the Father.
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

Beyond those characteristics which define the persons of the Holy Trinity every other characteristic is held in common because they are all God and everything which pertains to God pertains to all three persons.

Your interpretation of certain scriptures presents a Son who is somehow 'less' God than the Father, not all Holy, not all Pure, plus it presents a Father who is not all Powerful.

 

[MoreCoffee]

the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages.

To be begotten of God the Father before all ages is the English language way of saying that the Son is generated (born of) the Father before time; thus it is called eternal generation. The phrases in bold above are the beginning of the Creed's assertions about the deity of the Son and his equality to the Father in his godhead and glory.

Wikipedia gives this account ...

The Council of Nicaea did not end the controversy, as many bishops of the Eastern provinces disputed the homoousios, the central term of the Nicene creed, as it had been used by Paul of Samosata, who had advocated a monarchianist Christology. Both the man and his teaching, including the term homoousios, had been condemned by the Synods of Antioch in 269.

Hence, after Constantine's death in 337, open dispute resumed again. Constantine's son Constantius II, who had become Emperor of the eastern part of the Empire, actually encouraged the Arians and set out to reverse the Nicene creed. His advisor in these affairs was Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had already at the Council of Nicea been the head of the Arian party, who also was made bishop of Constantinople.

Constantius used his power to exile bishops adhering to the Nicene creed, especially St Athanasius of Alexandria, who fled to Rome. In 355 Constantius became the sole Emperor and extended his pro-Arian policy toward the western provinces, frequently using force to push through his creed, even exiling Pope Liberius and installing Antipope Felix II.

As debates raged in an attempt to come up with a new formula, three camps evolved among the opponents of the Nicene creed. The first group mainly opposed the Nicene terminology and preferred the term homoiousios (alike in substance) to the Nicene homoousios, while they rejected Arius and his teaching and accepted the equality and coeternality of the persons of the Trinity. Because of this centrist position, and despite their rejection of Arius, they were called "semi-Arians" by their opponents. The second group also avoided invoking the name of Arius, but in large part followed Arius' teachings and, in another attempted compromise wording, described the Son as being like (homoios) the Father. A third group explicitly called upon Arius and described the Son as unlike (anhomoios) the Father. Constantius wavered in his support between the first and the second party, while harshly persecuting the third.

The debates among these groups resulted in numerous synods, among them the Council of Sardica in 343, the Council of Sirmium in 358 and the double Council of Rimini and Seleucia in 359, and no fewer than fourteen further creed formulas between 340 and 360, leading the pagan observer Ammianus Marcellinus to comment sarcastically: "The highways were covered with galloping bishops." None of these attempts were acceptable to the defenders of Nicene orthodoxy: writing about the latter councils, Saint Jerome remarked that the world "awoke with a groan to find itself Arian."

After Constantius' death in 361, his successor Julian, a devotee of Rome's pagan gods, declared that he would no longer attempt to favor one church faction over another, and allowed all exiled bishops to return; this resulted in further increasing dissension among Christians. The Emperor Valens, however, revived Constantius' policy and supported the "Homoian" party, exiling bishops and often using force. During this persecution many bishops were exiled to the other ends of the Empire, (e.g., St Hilary of Poitiers to the Eastern provinces). These contacts and the common plight subsequently led to a rapprochement between the Western supporters of the Nicene creed and the homoousios and the Eastern semi-Arians.​

-- Arianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

 

[~Anastasia~]

I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of
heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,

the only-begotten Son of God,
begotten of the Father before all ages;


.

I will admit that the point of "begotten" has been of some confusion to me at times. I had assumed it referred to the Incarnation and considered the OT mentions to be prophetic.

But the eternal sense of the Son having been begotten of the Father has done much to make sense of "One God" for me.

I'm not sure which controversies it might have headed off over the ages, but I "only-begotten" tells us that no other besides Christ Jesus has been directly begotten of God. No angel, not the first man, nor any other man, nor any other being. All of these are creations.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

I will admit that the point of "begotten" has been of some confusion to me at times. I had assumed it referred to the Incarnation and considered the OT mentions to be prophetic.

But the eternal sense of the Son having been begotten of the Father has done much to make sense of "One God" for me.

I'm not sure which controversies it might have headed off over the ages, but I "only-begotten" tells us that no other besides Christ Jesus has been directly begotten of God. No angel, not the first man, nor any other man, nor any other being. All of these are creations.

Yet we are the siblings of Christ. Begotten again.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I will admit that the point of "begotten" has been of some confusion to me at times. I had assumed it referred to the Incarnation and considered the OT mentions to be prophetic.

But the eternal sense of the Son having been begotten of the Father has done much to make sense of "One God" for me.

I'm not sure which controversies it might have headed off over the ages, but I "only-begotten" tells us that no other besides Christ Jesus has been directly begotten of God. No angel, not the first man, nor any other man, nor any other being. All of these are creations.

Disputes about theology can become very heated and that was certainly the case with Arius' followers and the orthodox traditionalists. Arius was something of a literalist in his reading of scripture; he appears to have held tradition in fairly low esteem when compared to his opponents in the dispute about the nature of Jesus Christ. He maintained that Jesus was a created being. The first created being, but created nonetheless. If you spend some time discussing Jesus with Jehovah's witnesses you will see, I think, what kind of approach Arius and his followers used when discussing Jesus' nature.

It's interesting to reflect on where literalism led Arius ...

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yet we are the siblings of Christ. Begotten again.

We are children through adoption, joint-heirs with Christ.

But we are not "begotten of God the Father" as Jesus Christ is. The Son is the only-begotten.

If we were, that would make us divine gods, which we are not.



ETA: I slightly misread your post. I would have worded it just a little differently if I had understood your intent (I thought you were disagreeing), but the points are all still true. Please forgive me.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It's interesting to reflect on where literalism led Arius ...

This is very true. Literalism can lead to a great deal of confusion, I have seen.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

We are children through adoption, joint-heirs with Christ.

But we are not "begotten of God the Father" as Jesus Christ is. The Son is the only-begotten.

If we were, that would make us divine gods, which we are not.



ETA: I slightly misread your post. I would have worded it just a little differently if I had understood your intent (I thought you were disagreeing), but the points are all still true. Please forgive me.

Surely not God Himself, or Christ Himself. But we came from God, if we belong to Him. We didn't beget ourselves. Perhaps we should consider ourselves the Children of God instead of the children of men, maybe then we might take our life in Christ more seriously.



1 John 10:33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’?[c] 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

Psalm 82 God stands in the congregation of the mighty;
He judges among the gods.[a]
2 How long will you judge unjustly,
And show partiality to the wicked? Selah
3 Defend the poor and fatherless;
Do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy;
Free them from the hand of the wicked.
5 They do not know, nor do they understand;
They walk about in darkness;
All the foundations of the earth are unstable.
6 I said, “You are gods,
And all of you are children of the Most High.
7 But you shall die like men,
And fall like one of the princes.”
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth;
For You shall inherit all nations.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Surely not God Himself, or Christ Himself. But we came from God, if we belong to Him. We didn't beget ourselves. Perhaps we should consider ourselves the Children of God instead of the children of men, maybe then we might take our life in Christ more seriously.

It goes back to the original language, and acknowledging the Divinity of Christ, and our nature as created beings.

But I agree with you that we are received into the family of Christ when we come into the faith. The community of the faithful is our family, God is Our Father, and within that framework is the best way to live out our faith and understand it.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

You responded to my comment below,

I don't think you understand the concept of the Trinity, three persons, one God.

They each do have different qualities/characteristics.

Sure they have different characteristics, but it's not the case that any of the three are not God. There IS only one God, and Jesus was God in the flesh. If you do not know that, you are kidding yourself about being orthodox, a Trinitarian, or of adhering to the Nicene Creed.

You quote my view, you repeat what I said, but then question I believe something different. There is a word for that. I don't think this forum would work out too well if everyone did that.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

The Father's only begotten Son declared by the Word of God expressed, in the life of God imparted, in the light of God shining forth, in the Grace that we enjoy of God, and the truth of God realized and apprehended. In all of those ways is God fully declared in the Son. Without beginning or end but abiding as a priest forever.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Those differences are described in the creed.
The Son is begotten of the Father.
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

Beyond those characteristics which define the persons of the Holy Trinity every other characteristic is held in common because they are all God and everything which pertains to God pertains to all three persons.

I don't think you have a very good handle on what a creed is. It does not define everything about a faith. A good one will declare the key indisputable tenets that bind a set of believers.

Where do you get the idea that the Nicene Creed says every complete difference between the 3 persons? I have never heard that before and it has not been said here.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I don't think you understand the concept of the Trinity, three persons, one God.

I don't think you have a very good handle on what a creed is.

Before this continues, I would like to offer a reminder that we are to address the post, not the poster.

It's rather inflammatory to make statements like this. Please refrain from addressing persons.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Your interpretation of certain scriptures presents a Son who is somehow 'less' God than the Father, not all Holy, not all Pure, plus it presents a Father who is not all Powerful.

Why don't you stick to arguing my points with quotes of what I actually say instead of putting words in my mouth in your "summary" that does not at all represent what I believe.

I have not said any of the things you claim.

 

[Tzaousios]

AnticipateHisComing, please see my reply to you in post #282. Thanks.

Bumped for AnticipateHisComing.

 

[Nanopants]

I will admit that the point of "begotten" has been of some confusion to me at times. I had assumed it referred to the Incarnation and considered the OT mentions to be prophetic.

But the eternal sense of the Son having been begotten of the Father has done much to make sense of "One God" for me.

I'm not sure which controversies it might have headed off over the ages, but I "only-begotten" tells us that no other besides Christ Jesus has been directly begotten of God. No angel, not the first man, nor any other man, nor any other being. All of these are creations.

True, and yet we find Joshua bowing before the Angel of YHVH, calling him "Lord" well before Jesus' birth. We're also told that Jacob stumbled upon the camp of the angels, conversed with God and wrestled with a man who renamed him Israel, and that Christ appeared at various times in "different forms." So, either we're dealing with apparitions, which lends toward gnostic beliefs of spirit vs flesh, or Jesus was born multiple times, or something else, or we're scratching the surface of the divine mystery of the prophets and Apostles, sons of God, foundation of the household of faith, the chief cornerstone of which being Jesus Christ the Son of God. He who has the Son has life, Christ in us is our hope of glory, and He came that we would have the right to become children of God.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Before this continues, I would like to offer a reminder that we are to address the post, not the poster.

It's rather inflammatory to make statements like this. Please refrain from addressing persons.

How about accusations of not believing Jesus is God, not believing in the Trinity or the Nicene Creed; are those OK?