The Nicene Creed - line by line

[Albion]

Yet, we, doctrinally, stress that they are to be seen as one.

One god. We do not stipulate that they are identical in all respects. To understand this is clearly the problem that those at Nicaea dealt with. How to say that the three are one in substance and indivisible, BUT ALSO that we are not to confuse the identity of one with another.

 

[Willie T]

Check your PM, K.

 

[seeingeyes]

Not in the least. Christ, the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth is the only one of the persons of God to have assumed a human nature. It seems almost too obvious that he would appear differently to us from the Father and the Holy Ghost.

Yet Jesus himself said "if you have seen me, you've seen the Father". So while he may indeed "appear" different to us, that is only because of our insistence on dividing man from God, and Christ from man, and physical from spiritual, etc, that causes us to not...quite...fully believe this.

(Is this too far off-topic, Ky?)

 

[Willie T]

One god. We do not stipulate that they are identical in all respects. To understand this is clearly the problem that those at Nicaea dealt with. How to say that the three are one in substance and indivisible, BUT ALSO that we are not to confuse the identity of one with another.

Yeah, maybe. But I have a hard time getting away from Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians 1:15, (the "image of God" verses) And I'm not talking "physical", of course, but attributes.

 

[seeingeyes]

One god. We do not stipulate that they are identical in all respects. To understand this is clearly the problem that those at Nicaea dealt with. How to say that the three are one in substance and indivisible, BUT ALSO that we are not to confuse the identity of one with another.

Why is that, though?

 

[Albion]

Yet Jesus himself said "if you have seen me, you've seen the Father".

No reputable theologian would tell you that he was saying that he WAS literally the Father, though. How could that be what Jesus was meaning when he also said that the Father was greater than he, that he was doing the work of the Father, etc.? He couldn't. What he was saying is almost universally understood to mean that he and the Father were one in purpose. It's like we might say "The Senator and I are 'like that' " (while showing the index and middle fingers of your hand crossed. You know that gesture).

So while he may indeed "appear" different to us, that is only because of our insistence on dividing man from God, and Christ from man, and physical from spiritual, etc, that causes us to not...quite...fully believe this.

(Is this too far off-topic, Ky?)

Wellllllllll, that's one of the ideas that the Council of Nicaea specifically wanted to dispel.

 

[seeingeyes]

No reputable theologian would tell you that he was saying that he WAS literally the Father, though.

Yet, that's precisely what the creed says:
"Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten,
not created, of one essence with the Father
through Whom all things were made."

How could that be what Jesus was meaning when he also said that the Father was greater than he, that he was doing the work of the Father, etc.? He couldn't. What he was saying is almost universally understood to mean that he and the Father were one in purpose. It's like we might say "The Senator and I are 'like that' " (while showing the index and middle fingers of your hand crossed. You know that gesture).

No reputable theologian would say that Jesus is less than the Father, even though Jesus said those things. And indeed, the creed doesn't express that either.

Wellllllllll, that's one of the ideas that the Council of Nicaea specifically wanted to dispel.

As I recall, the Christological issue in question was a defense against Arianism which claimed that the Son had a beginning. That he was not eternal, but raised up by God to Godhood status. That God the Father and God the Son were one in divine purpose, but not in divine being. The creed sought to clear that up.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yet Jesus himself said "if you have seen me, you've seen the Father". So while he may indeed "appear" different to us, that is only because of our insistence on dividing man from God, and Christ from man, and physical from spiritual, etc, that causes us to not...quite...fully believe this.

(Is this too far off-topic, Ky?)

I think it's very much on-topic.

(And I don't mind a little wandering discussion or fellowship in any case, as long as it's not disruptive. Y'all are more than fine )

 

[Albion]

Yet, that's precisely what the creed says:
"Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten,
not created, of one essence with the Father
through Whom all things were made."

Look carefully. That's not what you proposed. Yes, Christ is God. Yes, Christ was not created. Yes, Christ is of "one essence" with the Father. But he is not the Father. You did not quote the part that says "Begotten by his Father before all worlds," I see. How do you suppose that would be possible if he were the Father??

No reputable theologian would say that Jesus is less than the Father

Agreed. I don't see anything there to debate.

As I recall, the Christological issue in question was a defense against Arianism which claimed that the Son had a beginning. That he was not eternal, but raised up by God to Godhood status. That God the Father and God the Son were one in divine purpose, but not in divine being. The creed sought to clear that up.

Yes--by asserting the divinity of Christ. As God, he was not created, etc. But that in no way was meant to say that he was literally the Father. That's another heresy altogether.

 

[seeingeyes]

Look carefully. That's not what you proposed. Yes, Christ is God. Yes, Christ was not created. Yes, Christ is of "one essence" with the Father. But he is not the Father. You did not quote the part that says "Begotten by his Father before all worlds," I see. How do you suppose that would be possible if he were the Father??



Agreed. I don't see anything there to debate.


Yes--by asserting the divinity of Christ. As God, he was not created, etc. But that in no way was meant to say that he was literally the Father. That's another heresy altogether.

He is not less than the Father, that's Arianism. He is the Father, that's Monarchianism or Sabellianism or something. He and the Father are One, but not quite, so we throw around "essence" and "eternally begotten" and throw in a few "energies" and then wonder why no one has any idea what the hell we're talking about. Then we throw up our hands and call it a mystery.

This doesn't seem to be the purpose for which Christ came. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Albion]

He is not less than the Father, that's Arianism.

Arianism is one version of that theme, right.

He is the Father, that's Monarchianism or Sabellianism or something. He and the Father are One, but not quite, so we throw around "essence" and "eternally begotten" and throw in a few "energies" and then wonder why no one has any idea what the hell we're talking about. Then we throw up our hands and call it a mystery.

I don't think it's that bad. While this is a mystery, and we cannot exactly explain it, and the Nicene Creed is just a human attempt, I do think we can generally "get" the point. Essence and Substance refer to the being who is God. "One," however, is a more elusive word. When it's said that the Father and the Son are "one," it could mean that they are the same in every way and identical, but it could mean that two somethings are united in some respect. That's what the theologians say this means, and it makes sense to me.

This doesn't seem to be the purpose for which Christ came. That's all I'm saying.

It's not, but somewhere along the line the church had to define itself, what it believes, and so on, if it wanted to stand for something. It's unlikely that any cause or movement can take convert the world if no one can say what it is all about or that it's whatever you want to make of it.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Yeah, maybe. But I have a hard time getting away from Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians 1:15, (the "image of God" verses) And I'm not talking "physical", of course, but attributes.

Yes, its hard to get away from that language. And Gods Spirit is part of Him just as our spirit is part of us. Perhaps the trinity can be understood that way, by examining ourselves. We have both a body, a soul and a spirit. 3 parts of one being. I don't know, just a thought.



Hebrews 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.


8 But about the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.

 

[seeingeyes]

Arianism is one version of that theme, right.


I don't think it's that bad. While this is a mystery, and we cannot exactly explain it, and the Nicene Creed is just a human attempt, I do think we can generally "get" the point. Essence and Substance refer to the being who is God. "One," however, is a more elusive word. When it's said that the Father and the Son are "one," it could mean that they are the same in every way and identical, but it could mean that two somethings are united in some respect. That's what the theologians say this means, and it makes sense to me.

It's not, but somewhere along the line the church had to define itself, what it believes, and so on, if it wanted to stand for something. It's unlikely that any cause or movement can take convert the world if no one can say what it is all about or that it's whatever you want to make of it.

I guess the question is: What difference does it make?

Perhaps I'm letting my rust-belt show a little, but this strikes me as straining at gnats while there are camels in the soup. What practical difference does this make? And if it does make such a difference, why didn't Jesus spell it all out? Why didn't he, when he was accused of blasphemy, say, "Oh no, no, I'm not God the Father, I'm God the son, eternally begotten, blah blah blah" instead of saying "Before Abraham was, I am"?

The more I look at it the more it seems to be a way to stand in the doorway. Not entering in and not allowing anyone else to enter either.

But, ok, I'm done preaching...you take the last word, brother, then we'll let Kylissa have her thread.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

I'm going to hope you get some more complete replies here, but the simple answer should be no - the Father should not be said to have greater power/glory than the Son and/or the Holy Spirit.

Again I will say, this is not how the Nicene Creed reads. It says ONE God then the Father Almighty.

The three persons of the Trinity are all co-equal. They are all God. One God in three persons.

You quote a different creed, not one that is criteria for being orthodox on this forum. Please quote scripture to defend what you believe and proclaim.

There are three parts of the Nicene creed that describe the three persons of God. They are separate because each person has different qualities, just like the church is one but made up of different unequal people.

I am thinking the Scripture you mention may be Christ Jesus speaking to His disciples as a human, saying that the Father is greater. But that one needs to be verified by someone else - I'm not sure that's the reason He said that. It also becomes easy to confuse Who Christ Jesus was if I've said that wrongly, because you don't separate Jesus the Man and Jesus as God into two "halves" or "persons" ... at least Chalcedonian Christians don't ... if I've gotten all that right.

You repeat the common excuse to dismiss Jesus' clear words. Read the context of John 14, your explanation makes no sense. Jesus says he is going to heaven but the disciples should not be distraught because he will ask the Father who is greater, to send the Holy Spirit. If Jesus was going to heaven and would resume his greater glory with equal power to the Father and Holy Spirit, he would just send the Holy Spirit himself and not ask the greater Father to send him.


I will also say that there are many other scriptures that point to the Father being greater.

Jesus taught us to pray to the Father; with thy will be done and thine is the kingdom and power and glory.

The Son was given authority over creation.

1 Cor 15:27 For he[Father] “has put everything under his[Jesus] feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Look to the places where God the Father made his presence known to man, the glory being so great that man trembled in fear. Compare this to even Jesus' transfiguration and you will note that the level of glory is not the same.

Revelation 21:23 The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.


You could easily discuss all this in a seperate thread. I don't wish to do that here. I just want to discuss what is stated in the Nicene Creed without the baggage of another creed.

 

[Albion]

I guess the question is: What difference does it make?

Perhaps I'm letting my rust-belt show a little, but this strikes me as straining at gnats while there are camels in the soup. What practical difference does this make? And if it does make such a difference, why didn't Jesus spell it all out? Why didn't he, when he was accused of blasphemy, say, "Oh no, no, I'm not God the Father, I'm God the son, eternally begotten, blah blah blah" instead of saying "Before Abraham was, I am"?

The more I look at it the more it seems to be a way to stand in the doorway. Not entering in and not allowing anyone else to enter either.

But, ok, I'm done preaching...you take the last word, brother, then we'll let Kylissa have her thread.

In a sense, I agree with you. But in another sense, I don't--because it's not a "practical" issue. To not know who your own god is (and that's what this boils down to) seems to me to be a serious flaw.

Everything that we believe about Jesus, which is everything that's critical and practical in our religion, depends on knowing who he was. If he was just a nice guy who taught us to be kindly, we've got nothing more than a philosophy of life, and every atheist has that. Conversely, if he was God, who is the Father we (the Hebrews) already knew?

In the final analysis, we cannot understand this stuff. However, we can corral the essentials and fence out the wrong answers sufficiently to be confident of the basic truth of it all. To me, it's necessary, although I do agree that we can't fall into trying to define the mystery of God down to the last speck of information.

Thanks for a nice discussion.

 

[seeingeyes]

In a sense, I agree with you. But in another sense, I don't--because it's not a "practical" issue. To not know who your own god is (and that's what this boils down to) seems to me to be a serious flaw.

Everything that we believe about Jesus, which is everything that's critical and practical in our religion, depends on knowing who he was. If he was just a nice guy who taught us to be kindly, we've got nothing more than a philosophy of life, and every atheist has that. Conversely, if he was God, who is the Father we (the Hebrews) already knew?

In the final analysis, we cannot understand this stuff. However, we can corral the essentials and fence out the wrong answers sufficiently to be confident of the basic truth of it all. To me, it's necessary, although I do agree that we can't fall into trying to define the mystery of God down to the last speck of information.

Thanks for a nice discussion.

Thank you for the discussion as well.

Perhaps I should start a thread on this, the down and dirty implications of what we believe always fascinate me most.

 

[Chesterton]

Why didn't he, when he was accused of blasphemy, say, "Oh no, no, I'm not God the Father, I'm God the son, eternally begotten, blah blah blah" instead of saying "Before Abraham was, I am"?

Would that make much difference? "Eternally begotten" vs. "I am"? They wouldn't have understood either much better than we do. I'm always reminded of the story Flatland, you know, a 3D figure trying to explain the third dimension to a 2D figure. We can only see through a glass darkly now.

 

[~Anastasia~]

You know, as far as this thread goes ... I liked the way the Lord's Prayer thread went, and this was to be patterned after it. But to be honest, we're not getting a great many comments that move along parts of the Creed in the same way we did that one. Instead, it's generating discussion.

(I do appreciate the ones that we have gotten, btw, and I would appreciate seeing that continue as we move forward.)

But the real PURPOSE of the Creed was to define the faith. It seems counterproductive if I demand we don't hash these things out for whatever benefit we may each get from the discussion, just for the sake of progressing.

So - at the risk of derailment, LOL, I think it's really more to the point to talk out what we are really discussing here.

Anyone is free to start a new thread on the details if you want - I almost started one on the questions put to me above - but after some thought, I think it might be more productive to discuss it here rather than fragmenting things.

So any continued discussion of this topic is fine with me. I'll slow down the progress if need be. I have no schedule to keep.

Thanks for your participation, everyone. God bless. I want to figure out the details of this as well.

 

[Willie T]

Well, in truth, it doesn't matter one iota what some "creed" says or how it is worded.

The problem comes from the "religious rules" we've invented. Just as Kylissa needs liturgy in her worship, and I won't set foot inside a "liturgical" institution, many people have convinced themselves that God authorized these "creeds" the same way some people have convinced themselves He authorized the KJV.

Thus, if you do proclaim allegiance to some words a church publishes.... then people tend to think that is somehow a binding contract with God, and if it reads one way or another that they either agree with, or don't agree with, such a "creed" might influence them for or against either your denomination, or even against God, altogether.

Frankly, despite the argument here for needing to publish a document proclaiming that we stand FOR something concrete and tangible... that can be recited.... I honestly see no point in any of these "creeds". They are just one more possible barrier that we throw up between God and men.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

I think we put too much value on a creed, as if the document were sacred scripture. But its nothing more than people agreeing on beliefs, the creed is not scripture, its not ispired text, although it may be based on it. And how can we put a few things in the Creed but not all things? Maybe the Creed should say that we believe that scripture alone defines all truth.