The Nicene Creed - line by line

[ViaCrucis]

Thank you for that wonderful summary. CL, with your permission, I would like to start a separate thread regarding this, because I believe it deserves its own space, and it would be too off topic for this one. I wasn't really aware of the way the Reformers handled this.

May I please quote this in a new thread and I will post the link here? Anyone who is interested, please wait for another thread and not discuss it here.

I am really very interested in knowing more about this though?

Thank you so much.

Go for it, I don't mind

-CryptoLutheran

 

[~Anastasia~]

If we're still attempting to remain on topic, and if we're still on the first line of the Creed,

We are, and thank you for your post.

I think there was some natural discussion about the Creed itself, and some questions that seemed helpful to allow. I don't want the thread to get off topic, but at the same time, I think the beginning is necessarily a little messy.

Thanks for your post.

I'll probably move on to the next part a few hours from now. Anyone wanting to "catch up" may do so at any time.

 

[seeingeyes]

"I believe in One God"

Of course, how many could there be?

The Lord our God, the Lord is One. And He is busy reconciling all things to Himself.

He was One before the beginning and He'll be One after the end.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Go for it, I don't mind

-CryptoLutheran

Thanks so much!

That thread is in regards to the Reformers and Sola Scriptura.

It is here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7844407/

For anyone interested.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I believe in one God is the English translation of these words in Greek Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν and in the liturgy it is Πιστεύω εἰς ἕνα Θεόν and the Latin equivalent is Credo in unum Deum when it is said in the liturgy. It seems almost too ordinary to be worth comment yet when it was formulated it was a beacon of light shining in a polytheistic empire where the followers of paganism vastly outnumbered Christians. It was also a controversial proclamation because it implied that not only were the pagan gods not believed in by Christians but also that the emperor was not a god in whom Christians placed any faith. And when it is noted that the first Nicene council was summoned by a Roman emperor who was (until recently) regarded as a divinity it becomes obvious how subversive of the order of things that then existed the opening words of the creed really were.

I believe, it says, rather than stating "God is one" it starts by affirming my belief in the oneness of God. My belief as a follower of Jesus Christ. My belief as one who hopes in one God and is willing to give up the gods and the values of a culture that conquered the known world. A culture that was vigorous and powerful and thoroughly polytheistic.

Today believing in one God in an English speaking nation is commonplace, almost the norm, or so it seems. Yet the words of the creed still have power to shock; try saying "I believe in one God" to your work mates, your sporting friends, your family and perhaps you'll see how controversial the words still can be.

"I believe in one God" shakes the foundations of every kind of self-sufficiency because the one God in which I believe is not me.

I think it's noteworthy that as much as people will admit to there being a god, most often they will not be refering to Jesus as the expression of the Christian God. You'll find that in conversation with secular friends, family and even with church members that pretty much all of them will talk about God but very few will discuss Jesus and that is what/who the beacon of light is that shines straight the way to the Father.
On another level but connected is that those who do not freely acknowledge Christ except when confronted in a way that may threaten their standing in the church, are not in accordance with the opening lines of the Nicene code and are therefore counted among the unorthodox it would seem.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Oh trust me, it is coming regardless, because it is not literally written in the bible verse by verse. It will be contested by the extremely literal sola scriptura people.

Speaking for "Sola" scripture. Perhaps the problem isnt in the Creed but instead its found in how some posters seem to use the creed as a sacred thing which defines all truth, yet they don't seem to hold the scriptures which the creed is supposedly built on with the same respect. How can the creed alone define all truth, but not the scriptures also, which the creed is built on?

Why did they need to use scripture to back the creeds truth? Maybe because scripture alone defines all truth?

 

[Targaryen]

Speaking for "Sola" scripture. Perhaps the problem isnt in the Creed but instead its found in how some posters seem to use the creed as a sacred thing which defines all truth, yet they don't seem to hold the scriptures which the creed is supposedly built on with the same respect. How can the creed alone define all truth, but not the scriptures also, which the creed is built on?

Why did they need to use scripture to back the creeds truth? Maybe because scripture alone defines all truth?

That's Solo Scriptura, not Sola Scriptura

 

[WisdomTree]

Speaking for "Sola" scripture. Perhaps the problem isnt in the Creed but instead its found in how some posters seem to use the creed as a sacred thing which defines all truth, yet they don't seem to hold the scriptures which the creed is supposedly built on with the same respect. How can the creed alone define all truth, but not the scriptures also, which the creed is built on?

Why did they need to use scripture to back the creeds truth? Maybe because scripture alone defines all truth?

They do on the Forum, but back then the Creed was established as a means to arbitrate two contrasting interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Also remember, the years are 325AD when it was formed and 381AD when it was modified. Though the majority of the texts had been collected, there was still no complete uniformity of the canon with the issue of the Antilegomena still plaguing the Church.

That's Solo Scriptura, not Sola Scriptura

Wouldn't that be just bad Latin?

 

[Restoresmysoul]

The Apocalypse of St. John (the Revelation) isn't used in the Eastern lectionary (the regular Scripture readings that form a fundamental portion of the Liturgy). But it is still accepted as Holy Scripture.

The reason for this goes back to antiquity. In the Western Church the Apocalypse of St. John has been widely accepted, the Latin Fathers widely speak favorably on it and emphasize its position as Holy Scripture. The Eastern Church was very slow to accept this book, and the Greek and other Eastern Fathers do not speak of it very often. It really isn't until the 8th century that the Eastern Church came to embrace it more fully, in part because of the influence of St. John of Damascus, one of the most important Eastern theologians of that period, who argued strongly for its full acceptance.

The Church that Christ built on His Rock accepted the book of Revelation, and they had it in the very beginning. So whats that tell us about these Churches that didn't accept it until centuries later?

 

[Restoresmysoul]

That's Solo Scriptura, not Sola Scriptura

Question: "What is sola scriptura?"

Answer: The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian.

Read more: What is sola scriptura?

 

[PaladinValer]

The Church that Christ built on His Rock accepted the book of Revelation, and they had it in the very beginning. So whats that tell us about these Churches that didn't accept it until centuries later?

Clearly the quoted portion of ViaCrucis' post was willfully taken out of context , particularly the VERY FIRST SENTENCE and the FACT IT WAS QUOTED MEANS IT WAS READ.

Non-use in liturgical worship doesn't mean non-acceptance as canon, especially when, as said above, in the first sentence, its acceptance as part of the Sacred Canon of Holy Scripture is made clear.

As another post of mine said in a different thread: honesty and logic is not much to ask for.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Clearly the quoted portion of ViaCrucis' post was willfully taken out of context , particularly the VERY FIRST SENTENCE and the FACT IT WAS QUOTED MEANS IT WAS READ.

Non-use in liturgical worship doesn't mean non-acceptance as canon, especially when, as said above, in the first sentence, its acceptance as part of the Sacred Canon of Holy Scripture is made clear.

As another post of mine said in a different thread: honesty and logic is not much to ask for.

I am being both honest and logical. Answer my question and i will say the same for you.

 

[Albion]

Question: "What is sola scriptura?"

Answer: The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian.

Yes, but that's not Solo Scriptura. There are some people who follow the principle of Solo Scriptura and say, openly, that they do, using that term. I suppose that this might be called a fringe POV, but in any case it's not Sola Scriptura.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Yes, but that's not Solo Scriptura. There are some people who follow the principle of Solo Scriptura and say, openly, that they do, using that term. I suppose that this might be called a fringe POV, but in any case it's not Sola Scriptura.

I was speaking for Sola, that why i put the word in this form- "Sola". I wanted there to be no misunderstanding.

 

[WisdomTree]

The Church that Christ built on His Rock accepted the book of Revelation, and they had it in the very beginning. So whats that tell us about these Churches that didn't accept it until centuries later?

To start off with, the Revelations of Saint John was not as widespread as the other writings of the Apostles, such as the four Gospels and just over half of the Letters, hence why it is missing in the Syriac Peshitta. Remember, this is before the printing press, it was difficult to get multiple copies out.

Another thing is that because of that, as well as the autonomous nature of the Churches, questions regarding the authenticity of the author, and sometimes even just plain bad timing of certain heresies, it was not always universally accepted.

Lastly, people weren't inclined to accept everything blindly. There were always a set standard into accepting what is orthodox and what is heterodox. Though this became much more refined later on, just because a particular writing beared a name of a famous Apostle did not always get enthusiastic reception (though some did, despite being forgeries).

Regardless, once again we are horribly getting off-topic again. Let us go to the next line or three of the Creed.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Regardless, once again we are horribly getting off-topic again. Let us go to the next line or three of the Creed.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

agreed

 

[~Anastasia~]

Regardless, once again we are horribly getting off-topic again. Let us go to the next line or three of the Creed.

I was checking in to do just that. I thought of breaking the next part into two sections, but in the interest of not swerving off topic with too much debate, we'll try this:

Father Almighty, Creator of
heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Church that Christ built on His Rock accepted the book of Revelation, and they had it in the very beginning. So whats that tell us about these Churches that didn't accept it until centuries later?

It tells me at least that you didn't bother to process what I wrote, and have decided to make a claim that has as its basis nothing more than your personal say-so.

You know that Christ's Church "accepted the book of Revelation, and they had it in the very beginning" how? How did you receive this information?

What historical sources? And if not historical sources because you don't like them and simply want to go only by "what the Bible says" then perhaps you could show me in Scripture where this is found.

Or did God personally and immutably beam this information directly down and between your eyes?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Restoresmysoul]

It tells me at least that you didn't bother to process what I wrote, and have decided to make a claim that has as its basis nothing more than your personal say-so.

You know that Christ's Church "accepted the book of Revelation, and they had it in the very beginning" how? How did you receive this information?

What historical sources? And if not historical sources because you don't like them and simply want to go only by "what the Bible says" then perhaps you could show me in Scripture where this is found.

Or did God personally and immutably beam this information directly down and between your eyes?

-CryptoLutheran

Perhaps we should start another thread on this, we may be straying off topic. However to answer your question, the letter was written by the Prophet who spoke Gods words to the Churches. So that seems evidence that the first Church would have this Revelation. I cannot see Paul, Peter, John and James not having this prophecy. They must have had it.

 

[Tzaousios]

Yes, but that's not Solo Scriptura. There are some people who follow the principle of Solo Scriptura and say, openly, that they do, using that term. I suppose that this might be called a fringe POV, but in any case it's not Sola Scriptura.

Are you willing to acknowledge that people often conflate Solo Scriptura with Sola Scriptura, whether on purpose or ignorantly?