The Nicene Creed - line by line

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Perhaps we can resume the Creed.

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

I love the Lord's prayer...our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Every bit of that prayer is a blessing. In it is that ladder that leads from heaven to earth and back again, connecting the shadow to the substance. It's weird to think that the invisable is actually blocking much of the light that throws the visable into shadow but it does.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

I do not believe that

Well regardless, at least we can agree that Revelation, although misunderstood, is agreeable. It only leads us into following the Lord. It never leads us away from Him.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

It was first sent to the Eastern churches listed in the letter. I'm sure copies were made later but at first it seems to be addressed to those seven specifically and the letter did not instruct those seven to send out copies to those it was not addressed to. I'm not sure when it made it's way to Rome.

I admit that i dont understand revelation fully. But its more than a letter written to those Church's. Perhaps im only speculating here, or reiterating the speculation of others, but those Church's may be symbolic just as much of the things in the prophecy are symbolic. One things for sure, it rivals Danial and Isaiah in their prophecies. Its truly more than just a letter. So i assume that all the leaders of THE Church had that prophesy.

 

[seeingeyes]

Perhaps we can resume the Creed.

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

"Father" and "Creator" are the same thing, though "Father" is a word that comes with familial context (and, of course, plenty of baggage in most cases).

God is the source of all things. This is His world, His work. He does not shy away from responsibility for it as a man might. It's His.

 

[prodromos]

I admit that i dont understand revelation fully. But its more than a letter written to those Church's. Perhaps im only speculating here, or reiterating the speculation of others, but those Church's may be symbolic just as much of the things in the prophecy are symbolic. One things for sure, it rivals Danial and Isaiah in their prophecies. Its truly more than just a letter. So i assume that all the leaders of THE Church had that prophesy.

It would be nice if you could keep this discussion in the other thread you started as it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread

 

[Willie T]

Some thoughts for you this morning, Sorry, but I see the church as "We", not "I", so that is how you'll hear it from me. (I can give you an earful on the "We", if you ask.)

“We believe in God.” So states the creed. I am occasionally asked if I believe in God. My usual answer is no. I go on to explain. Why would I start by saying “no?” I begin with a “no” as if to say, “God? You mean like a supernatural Santa Claus in the sky? Or a great big humungous deity to be feared who requires sacrifice and blood and all that stuff? Or like the gods who dwell on Olympus with their tempers and lusts and that sort of thing? No, gave up believing in them a long time ago.” And I have. If you are a follower of Jesus, so have you.

However, if by God you mean something else, something completely ‘Other’ then yes, I do believe.

The Creed likewise does not begin “We believe that God…exists.” Our faith is not in our theology, nor is it in propositions about God. Our faith is “in” God. That is, as I explained in an earlier post, we trust our God. Who is this God we trust? This is the question the Creed answers. We are not those who need ever spend any time making apologies for the trust we have placed in God. The three opening words of the Creed (in English) are a confession of the character of our God. “We believe in, we trust in.”

Who is this God we trust? The Creed does a strange thing. It begins by saying “We believe in one God, Abba, Pantokrator, Creator of heaven and earth.” It does not stop there though. It continues “And in Jesus Christ”, “And in the Holy Spirit.” The noun God is being given redefinition, or as I said in an earlier post, the noun God, for the Christian, creates a math problem.

The Creed does not begin with “We believe that God is…(fill in the blank)” where we fill in the blank space with a cascading catena of nouns and adjectives (holy, just, righteous, eternal, etc). Rather, the Creed begins by describing for us the extraordinary character of the source of all life. The first thing it affirms about God is three-fold; there will be more, but the first three characterizations give a starting point that blows out of the water our misconceptions. These are: parenting skills, infinite possibilities and creativity.

“We believe in one God, the Abba…” Our God is first characterized by Jesus’ favorite way of speaking of God. God is a nurturing parental presence. This God does not treat children abusively giving stones instead of daily bread, or poisonous creatures or calamitous events instead of nourishment. This God is a parent who loves children deeply as a healthy parent loves their children. To this God we are of infinite worth (if God loves the little sparrows, how much more does God love us!). To this God we are beloved, cared for (your heavenly Abba knows your needs before you even ask) and precious. We are royal children (“It has pleased the Abba to reign over you, with you, under you and in you&#8221. Our God is our Abba and we are the children of God’s reign.

“We believe in one God the Abba Almighty…” Our Abba has no competition from ‘other gods.’ Nor does our Abba have a dark side. There is nothing in the Creed (or in Jesus’ view of God) that God is Janus-faced or has a ‘shadow of turning.’ The Greek term used in the Creed is ‘pantokrator’ which is a pretty powerful designation meaning something like the one who holds all authority. A pantokrator’s decisions are final. No one can match their power. When they say something is a certain way, it is that way, period. So the one we call Abba, who has (in Jesus and by the Spirit) made us royal children and has authorized us to be so (John 1:13), has not changed her/his mind about us. If, in many patriarchal homes, the father has the last word, and that last word is usually spoken with a fist hammered on a table to give it authority, and often that last word is a threat, in the case of our Abba, this is not so. The authority of our God is a nurturing authority; God has all power to say to the universe, “These are my children, my beloved children, whom I love.”

In Latin, the word “omnipotentem” has transliterated and from which we derive that crazy theological word ‘omnipotent’ by which we usually mean “all-powerful.” We hear this word “all-powerful” and think of a king in the sky who can do anything he pleases just because he is king. If we import this kind of human metaphor into the word ‘omnipotentem’ we are not allowing the character of the Abba to redefine it for us. Our Abba is not like earthly rulers, who lord it over others. We know this because we see Jesus as a servant of all. Our Abba is ‘omnipotentem’ in a beautiful way. Omni = all and potens = power or potential. Our Abba is the one of all potential, of endless possibility.

With our Abba, all things are possible. When we look at the universe we speak of ‘natural law’ and assume that somehow things are fixed or permanently set. Did you know that measurements of the speed of light fluctuate? The one supposed great constant in the universe of physics changes! Imagine that. Can you imagine a physical universe that is open to infinite possibilities and that is not static? Quantum physicists can and do! Our Abba is a God of incredible possibilities. But there is more.

“We believe in one God, Abba, Almighty, Creator of all that is.” Our Abba is not just full of infinite possibility, but of creative infinite possibility. Our Abba is not just an arbitrary deity who can do anything he/she wants because after all, he/she is God. No, our Abba is a God whose possibilities are creative or life oriented. Creation is alive, full of life, robustly manifesting life. Our Abba is a life-giver. Our Abba calls light out of chaos, out of darkness. Our Abba brings life to the grave. Our Abba transforms the decaying, dying cosmos into new creation all the time. Our Abba is full of life-giving possibility.

We believe in a God who is about life, not death, about restoring joy and honor, not about bringing misery and denigration. The very first thing we say about God is a good thing, it
reflects Jesus’ view of God and it reflects the view of the God of ‘evangel’ of Gospel. Our Abba is beautiful.

 

[Albion]

You said "we," but is that--or some version of it--a Vineyard Church creedal statement, Willie?

“We believe in God, (the) Abba (Almighty), Pantokrator, Creator of heaven and earth (and all that is).”

 

[seeingeyes]

We believe in a God who is about life, not death, about restoring joy and honor, not about bringing misery and denigration. The very first thing we say about God is a good thing, it
reflects Jesus’ view of God and it reflects the view of the God of ‘evangel’ of Gospel. Our Abba is beautiful.

Preach!

 

[Willie T]

You said "we," but is that--or some version of it--a Vineyard Church creedal statement, Willie?

“We believe in God, (the) Abba (Almighty), Pantokrator, Creator of heaven and earth (and all that is).”

Goodness, no! You would have most Vineyard people rolling over in laughter to suggest that we recite (or even "sing" as it more properly might be done) any sort of creed.

This is just one of at least three different versions of "The Creed" that I ran across online. Frankly, I haven't heard the creed spoken since I was a teenager........ and I can't even remember in which of the many churches I've attended that was... Lutheran, probably.

 

[PaladinValer]

"We/I believe in One God"

It is fundamental that there is one source, not multiples. God is unique; supreme: He has no equals; He has no rivals. We're talking something ultimate and infinite right away, yet as much as He is complex, He is simple: ultimate yet one at the same time. It reminds us that we cannot possibly comprehend Him, but have a way of understanding Him to the best of our limitations.

Both the "I" and "We" find fundamental theological significance:

• "We" makes it clear that we are not just a loose confederation of independents but the Mystical Body of Christ, likened often to a living organism: we are interdependent; hyperindividualism is expressly impossible and foreign.
• "I" makes it clear that individuals are still members. It is interdependence, not dependence. Our individuality is still our own and God calls us to function in the ways that benefit the entire body. We ourselves are culpable, not just the group. Just as hyperindividualism is foreign, so is the idea that "hyperdependence".

Unfortunately, there is no current way in English to render these theological implications both perfectly, so we need to keep each always in the back of our minds.


"The Father, Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth"


God is not impersonable. He has a relationship; one of a parent. Given the anthropological implications, He is seen as male, which is significant for us as He has the power to give authority, rulership, and inheritance. This comes into importance when it comes to the Son.


He is Almighty, which should remind us, once again, of His limitlessness and inability to fully comprehend Him. Included in this is a warning to limit Him in such anthropological ways like the above: while He is seen as male, He is as much female (again, we will see this later and immediately too) as He is male; the maleness has to do with the reasons given above, not in terms of literal sex or gender. When we get lost in these, we no longer have the Almighty Father but a god of our own creation.


He is Creator; He is involved; He is not passive but active. He does things Himself, and is always behind all things: both the visible and invisible. This goes behind the limitations of sensation...it really tells us about materiality and etherealness. The physicality; the material, is good; they are His as much as the spiritual and immaterial. He is the Source of both, but He is not limited to them: the Source is not the things created but separate...yet always involved and found therein. We know Him only as far as we can, and we can know of Him somewhat through his Creation, and how He creates this Creation: giving and compassionate.

 

[Albion]

You said "we," but is that--or some version of it--a Vineyard Church creedal statement, Willie?


Goodness, no! You would have most Vineyard people rolling over in laughter to suggest that we recite (or even "sing" as it more properly might be done) any sort of creed.

This is just one of at least three different versions of "The Creed" that I ran across online. Frankly, I haven't heard the creed spoken since I was a teenager........ and I can't even remember in which of the many churches I've attended that was... Lutheran, probably.

I see. It seems to have become a "thing" to improve upon the creeds, just as we see with Marriage ceremonies these days.

 

[Willie T]

I see. It seems to have become a "thing" to improve upon the creeds, just as we see with Marriage ceremonies these days.

In the reading I've done, it seems the "We" was added way back in 300, something, AD.

 

[Albion]

In the reading I've done, it seems the "We" was added way back in 300, something, AD.

Every church I know used the "I" version until the mania of "liturgical reform" hit town during the Hippie/Vietnam/Sexual Revolution era when everything conventional had to be tampered with. Then, of course, "we" seemed more meaningful.

 

[Willie T]

Every church I know used the "I" version until the mania of "liturgical reform" hit town during the Hippie/Vietnam/Sexual Revolution era when everything conventional had to be tampered with. Then, of course, "we" seemed more meaningful.

I just left an Anglican site, and the creed there was printed with the "We". Was this not accurate?

 

[Albion]

I just left an Anglican site, and the creed there was printed with the "We". Was this not accurate?

Depends on which Anglican church you were dealing with.

Mine uses the "I" form because it still uses the historic Book of Common Prayer in preference to some modernized liturgy. And of course "we" could well be the current usage in whatever church you were consulting, even if it were a recent change.

Actually, though, I wasn't particularly focused on the I/We part of what I read in your earlier post but more on the whole range of modifications, the "Pantocrator" insertion, etc.

 

[Willie T]

Depends on which Anglican church you were dealing with. Mine uses the "I" form because it still uses the historic Book of Common Prayer in preference to some modernized liturgy.

Actually, though, I wasn't particularly focused on the I/We part of what I read in your earlier post but more on the whole range of modifications, the "Pantocrator" insertion, etc.

Oh. The "Pantocrator" was just that site's explanation of what the original Greek word was.

The "Abbas" aren't in the original either.... just shown to demonstrate exactly the relational understanding of God.

This conversation is, to me, an excellent example of how something that was never "Scripture", at all, has come to be almost worshiped to the point that if you speak of the principle, intent, and meaning, but do not recite, verbatim, the precise words of the locally accepted version, you might be called a blasphemer.

Just more "rules" we seem to delight in heaping upon people.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

aren't there technically two versions of the creed officially? A 325 one and another at 381? It seems like the second one was meant to clarify even more and promote church unity.

 

[Albion]

aren't there technically two versions of the creed officially? A 325 one and another at 381? It seems like the second one was meant to clarify even more and promote church unity.

Yes, but that was more a matter of a major addition to the earlier version, not so much a tweaking of the language used, as Willie and I were discussing. The second of the two you have in mind expanded the creed by dealing with the nature and role of the Holy Ghost.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Yes, but that was more a matter of a major addition to the earlier version, not so much a tweaking of the language used, as Willie and I were discussing. The second of the two you have in mind expanded the creed by dealing with the nature and role of the Holy Ghost.

I don't think many anti-rcc folks would be a fan of that second one. it has the evil word catholic in it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Is the Pantokrator not in the Greek?

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν Πατέρα παντοκράτορα
ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων·

Pistévo is éna Theón, Patéra, Pantokrátora, Piitín ouranoú ke gis, oratón te pánton ke aoráton.

And if we consider this a commentary, then we can appreciate that God is not only "Patéra" but also "Abba". I mentioned Abba in my commentary as well, but I of course am not arguing to modify the Creed.

As to the "I" and the "We" ... the Creed says what it says. The "I" probably has something to do with the purpose for which it was codified, I would guess. It must be affirmed by the person in order to join the Orthodox Church, this I know. But it is read by the Church as a whole, every Divine Liturgy. So essentially is is a "we" in practice. And I know the Orthodox Church believes strongly in "we" as a group - so it would seem acceptable in a commentary.

As to everything else, I would hope we can have peace in this one thread that ought to unite us. I understand zealously contending for a lack of change in the Creed - that was largely what led to the Great Schism after all. But if we consider what we do here to be our thoughts on the Creed, hopefully we can all contribute in peace.