The Nicene Creed

[BobRyan]

Catholics are neither Arminian nor Calvinist. We're just not on that particular scale. Jimmy Akin once said that a Catholic can be about a three and a half point on the TULIP thing. I don't know. But I suspect we do have a few common beliefs. (But don't say that aloud as some people might go ballistic if they knew.)

I used to say the same thing about Adventists until I looked into the Arminian vs Calvinist topic a bit more.

Its a bit like saying "are you an atheist or do you believe there is a God" and then answering "neither one". when you look at what they are saying ... you realize that "neither one" is not an option.

There are several forms of Calvinism and at least 2 forms of Arminianism.

either way - it is hard to not be a Calvinist - without being Arminian. Adventists don't go around saying "we are Arminian" and you don't find much at all in our doctrinal discussions on that --- but that is what we are.

 

[BobRyan]

I do hope this discussion which has developed is not turning out to be eristic. There are no winners or losers when we all fellowship.
I try to be a good Christian and claim to be a member of the universal church of Christ. This was well described in an Adventist Quarterly entitled "Oneness In Christ ", late 2018 I think, where they stated quite clearly that the SDA Church was not the universal church of Christ. They went on to give many Scripture references to make their point.

Depends on what context it is used in. The "universal church" - composed of all born-again saints in all denominations - most certainly includes those born-again saints in the Seveth-day Adventist church as well. Adventists have never taught that only Adventists will be in heaven.

This is irrefutable.

 

[BobRyan]

We have a copy of the book "Seventh Day Adventists Believe - 27 Fundamental Doctrines" and there is no reference to the Nicene Creed in it. Trinitarianism is obviously fundamental to them, the book contains three chapters, one for each part of the Holy Trinity, "God the Father", "God the Son", and "God the Holy Spirit" are the chapter titles.
Some knowledge of the history of Christianity must surely be part of being a Christian, therefore I sincerely hope that the Adventist Church is not trying to deny some of it by not giving the Nicene Creed some acknowledgement in their book, and in their teaching.

There is a book called "The Great Controversy" that a great many Adventists read - it is taught in our schools and colleges and most of our pastors have read it. (free online)

The Great Controversy — Ellen G. White Writings

Chapters 2-18 go through a great deal of Christian church history --

The book only has 41 chapters and 16 are about general Christian Church history.

I think Christians in other denominations also read about church history - but Adventists are particularly focused on it. Just not as focused on creedal statements because we don't use any of that as "proof" for a given doctrine.

 

[Gary K]

I used to say the same thing about Adventists until I looked into the Arminian vs Calvinist topic a bit more.

Its a bit like saying "are you an atheist or do you believe there is a God" and then answering "neither one". when you look at what they are saying ... you realize that "neither one" is not an option.

There are several forms of Calvinism and at least 2 forms of Arminianism.

either way - it is hard to not be a Calvinist - without being Arminian. Adventists don't go around saying "we are Arminian" and you don't find much at all in our doctrinal discussions on that --- but that is what we are.

I have looked at the Arminian question a little, and I have to say I agree with you. But, to me the question has always been moot as to whether SDAs are or are not Arminian, or something else.

I just study the Bible and whatever it teaches I follow. It matters not to me if any of it's teachings fall under one human classification or another. Truth is simply truth. And I don't believe any man made classifications of Biblical truth ever get it all right. It's like systematic theology. Why would I want to read something like a finite human system into the Bible which is the product of an infinite mind? Jesus told us He would send us the Comforter and that the Comforter would lead us into all truth. That promise is a whole lot surer, to me, than following any man made system of reading the Bible. We humans are always getting something wrong so why not just follow and accept what the Holy Spirit teaches? He's never wrong so Jesus' promise means a whole lot more to me than any "system" of theology. In fact, I don't think I've ever read any theologian's book from cover to cover, and I just plain old don't read very much from theologians, period. Seems to me that historically it has been the theologians who have always been the ones to lead the common man into false theologies. For example, was it the Jewish man on the street who led the Jewish nation wrong? Or was it the Jewish theologians who led the common man away from Christ?

 

[Norman70]

Thank you all for very interesting views. However, I do hope that I was not implying that Adventists deny the truth of the Nicene Creed, simply that some have not heard about it. I am sure all Adventists are Trinitarians, but an understanding of what Trinitarianism is must start with the writings of mortal human beings because I understand the concept is not mentioned in the Bible, only implied. Also the words in the Bible have also been written by mortal man, inspired by God of course, but well open to interpretation, so that our quest for truth is a spiritual adventure, not an entirely intellectual one.

 

[BobRyan]

Thank you all for very interesting views. However, I do hope that I was not implying that Adventists deny the truth of the Nicene Creed,

I agree that while we hold to truths - also found in a number of different groups - we don't hold to doctrinal truth for the reason that some other group also accepts it -- rather only that the Bible teaches it. And the result is that as you say - knowing about the various other times and councils where those Bible truths were accepted by this or that group is not a primary focus among the members.

I am sure all Adventists are Trinitarians, but an understanding of what Trinitarianism is must start with the writings of mortal human beings because I understand the concept is not mentioned in the Bible, only implied.

If it were true that not only is the term not found in the Bible but that not even the concept is found there - we would have a very big problem.

One God - Deut 5:4 ... in Three Persons Matt 28:19 ... is a concept we find explicitly in the text of scripture. And John 14, John 16 point to the Holy Spirit as the third person of the Godhead -- at least the concept is there.

But if as you say - "not even the concept" for Trinity were found in scripture - then how else could we show any support at all for it outside of creeds and historic statements of councils.

I
Also the words in the Bible have also been written by mortal man, inspired by God of course, but well open to interpretation, so that our quest for truth is a spiritual adventure, not an entirely intellectual one.

Mark 7 - Christ contrasts tradition with scripture and slam-hammer mad-made tradition of the magisterium of the one-true nation church of His day - started by God at Sinai.

Mark 7:6-13
6 But He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is certainly to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, given to God),’ 12 you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

As for "open for interpretation" ... Peter addresses that idea explicitly.

2 Peter 1: 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture becomes a matter of someone’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

 

[BobRyan]

I have looked at the Arminian question a little, and I have to say I agree with you. But, to me the question has always been moot as to whether SDAs are or are not Arminian, or something else.

I just study the Bible and whatever it teaches I follow. It matters not to me if any of it's teachings fall under one human classification or another.

Well I see your point - however I found this concept extremely useful when discussing doctrine with members of other Christian denominations that also have done some study into this topic - even before ever meeting a Seventh-day Adventist. It is helpful to use terms they are already familiar with.

In fact our entire doctrinal distinctive related to the investigative judgment, and sanctuary, the war in heaven, the fall of man, the 6000 years of sin, the story of Job and so many other things all trace back to this idea of "free will" -- "or not". It is at the very root of our doctrinal position, it explains why God did not destroy Lucifer on the spot or at the very least "tweak" Lucifer's thought cycle so that before he even knew he was "going off the rails" that fix would be in... Saving a lot of lives, sparing God the the need to die on the cross and avoiding the entire lake of fire event.

This is not merely a mole hill - rather it is the tip of a mountain that goes all the way down to the core of the Gospel and the foundation of the Universe, character of God etc.

 

[Gary K]

Well I see your point - however I found this concept extremely useful when discussing doctrine with members of other Christian denominations that also have done some study into this topic - even before ever meeting a Seventh-day Adventist. It is helpful to use terms they are already familiar with.

In fact our entire doctrinal distinctive related to the investigative judgment, and sanctuary, the war in heaven, the fall of man, the 6000 years of sin, the story of Job and so many other things all trace back to this idea of "free will" -- "or not". It is at the very root of our doctrinal position, it explains why God did not destroy Lucifer on the spot or at the very least "tweak" Lucifer's thought cycle so that before he even knew he was "going off the rails" that fix would be in... Saving a lot of lives, sparing God the the need to die on the cross and avoiding the entire lake of fire event.

This is not merely a mole hill - rather it is the tip of a mountain that goes all the way down to the core of the Gospel and the foundation of the Universe, character of God etc.

You make a good point. It works for you, but I just have a hard time seeing it for myself. To me it falls along the lines of Paul going to Athens and attempting use intellectual reasoning with the Greeks to convert them. It was such a failure he said that from then on he would preach nothing but Christ and Christ crucified. I agree with that because making intellectual arguments, in my experience, has never changed another person's heart. But talking Jesus and His love and power has allowed me to bring a bunch of people to God. I'm going back to what I know works. Don't get me wrong I like intellectual arguments but intellectual arguments don't change people's hearts. The love of God does.

 

[Norman70]

My apologies, I misused the word 'concept'. Of course the concept is there! Being an Adventist forum I am not here to debate and certainly not to critise, I am here to learn, so thank you.
@Gary K. I agree with your post and I was considering saying something similar, but in line with what I have just written, I refrained. But it is good that as Christians all of us, we can exchange our views in wholesome fellowship. The problem with intellectualism, being a worldly man-made enterprise, makes some believe they are right and others wrong. This is not the case with @BobRyan and our exchanges in fellowship should bring us all closer to God.

 

[Norman70]

Mind you, reading my post again, and all subsequent posts of course, perhaps I was not so much in error as I thought. In fact I did not say explicitly that the concept of the Holy Trinity was not there, but it was only there by implication. Perhaps I like to think that the concept has only been fully developed through man's reading of the Bible, by man himself. Oh dear, I feel as if I am moving into intellectualism, I must pray and get back to God, and get away from too deep a study of the Bible.

 

[Gary K]

Mind you, reading my post again, and all subsequent posts of course, perhaps I was not so much in error as I thought. In fact I did not say explicitly that the concept of the Holy Trinity was not there, but it was only there by implication. Perhaps I like to think that the concept has only been fully developed through man's reading of the Bible, by man himself. Oh dear, I feel as if I am moving into intellectualism, I must pray and get back to God, and get away from too deep a study of the Bible.

I don't see anything wrong with prayerful deep Bible study. In fact, I don't think we do enough of it. But I don't mean by deep study that we study about the Bible, but the Bible itself. It is the living word of God. It seems to me that intellectual devices such as "higher criticism" destroy faith in God's word.
The Bible itself is so deep that we cannot run out of things to learn for it puts us in contact with the mind of God, and that is infinite. Therefore, as finite beings we could study the Bible deeply for our entire lives and never find all that is in it for us to learn for the Holy Spirit can keep on revealing to us that infinite mind of God that is all truth.

 

[Norman70]

@Gary K. Although I like your post my problem is that I recognize that the written words in the Bible are not God's written words, and you use a lower case "w". When I refer to God's Word I use an upper case "W" , who is Jesus, who is God (John1.1 and John1.14). That is, for me to study God's Word is a spiritual endeavor, and may have little to do with the written words in any Bible, in any language, including the original ones. My prayers are there whenever I think about Jesus, read anything about Jesus, talk and write about Jesus, or listen to others talking about Jesus. They are all equally deep. Perhaps my problem is that I am not as committed to the Bible as I ought to be, I am certainly no literalist.

 

[Gary K]

@Gary K. Although I like your post my problem is that I recognize that the written words in the Bible are not God's written words, and you use a lower case "w". When I refer to God's Word I use an upper case "W" , who is Jesus, who is God (John1.1 and John1.14). That is, for me to study God's Word is a spiritual endeavor, and may have little to do with the written words in any Bible, in any language, including the original ones. My prayers are there whenever I think about Jesus, read anything about Jesus, talk and write about Jesus, or listen to others talking about Jesus. They are all equally deep. Perhaps my problem is that I am not as committed to the Bible as I ought to be, I am certainly no literalist.

You "recognize" that God's word isn't God's word?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God. Do you really think all the prophets and servants of God just wrote whatever they wanted to? Think about Balaam. He wanted to go and curse the Israelites for money. He wasn't allowed to do it. Whenever He opened his mouth to speak curses on Israel He spoke God's blessings on them instead. I'd say that is pretty instructive for us.

The other thing I think about from what you've said is you believe in a very small god. Your god isn't powerful enough to protect His own messages about Himself. That isn't even as powerful as a pagan god.

Why even claim to be a Christian if you don't believe God is strong enough to protect His own messages given to prophets who loved Him? If I believed that I would not be a Christian for I would have no basis for trusting God. Either the Bible is God's word and is trustworthy, or it isn't and no one should be a Christian for we would only be following what Paul calls cunningly devised fables. There would be no reality behind the promises of God, and I know from experience that there is. God has proven that to me time and time again.

 

[Norman70]

@Gary K. Regrettably we seem to have hijacked this thread somewhat for which I apologize to the OP. I feel I have to respond to your post now, but to continue our discussion there must be a more appropriate forum. However, I would not want to debate this issue, we are all Christians together and our faith in Jesus, who is God, is equally strong. Simply I notice you only use a lower case "w" when typing the word "word", every time. It is a crude device I know, and upper case characters were not in the original languages, but to distinguish what I mean by the Word of God I use an upper case "W" when I am referring to my spiritual connection with God through Jesus, who is the Word. We all agree that the written words in any version of the Bible, in whatever language, are written by man, not God, and therefore gives the devil opportunity to intervene. The Bible is a fascinating collection of books, all written by man, selected and put together by man (the apocrypha not included in the Protestant version, and suggested by man himself that they are not inspired by God) and is so complicated that there must be God's inspiration behind it, but, of course, God's inspiration is behind everything, and the complexities of our universe and life itself cannot be explained without God's inspiration. Thank you for the exchange, I do believe my faith in God is just as strong as yours, but I am not a literalist.

 

[DarylFawcett]

Regrettably we seem to have hijacked this thread somewhat for which I apologize to the OP.

You are the OP of this thread, which I just finished reading and for the most part found it to be a very good thread.

 

[Norman70]

@DarylFawcett. Many thanks, so I apologize to everyone for hijacking my own thread! I was confusing this one with another I have been posting in, the thread on Liturgical Christianity. This forum is, of course, for SDA members, and I came here to hear their views on the Nicene Creed, and found their views very interesting and helpful.

 

[reddogs]

My apologies, I misused the word 'concept'. Of course the concept is there! Being an Adventist forum I am not here to debate and certainly not to critise, I am here to learn, so thank you.
@Gary K. I agree with your post and I was considering saying something similar, but in line with what I have just written, I refrained. But it is good that as Christians all of us, we can exchange our views in wholesome fellowship. The problem with intellectualism, being a worldly man-made enterprise, makes some believe they are right and others wrong. This is not the case with @BobRyan and our exchanges in fellowship should bring us all closer to God.

Its good to discuss things as Christians, especially when it is the deeper things of God.

 

[Norman70]

Its good to discuss things as Christians, especially when it is the deeper things of God.

Absolutely, and the deeper things of God, that is our spiritual relationship with Him through Jesus, are not touched upon by the established Churches and the proselytizing preachers. This is why my wife and myself have withdrawn from all established Church attendance and commitment. Today we received yet another telephone call from a Jehovah's Witness, inviting us to participate in a virtual service through the Internet, Zoom. We declined of course, saying that we do not get any spiritual uplift from such events as a Church service, virtual or real. The TV evangelists leave us cold. However, as Christians together and talking about our relationship with God through Jesus, we thank the caller for the call, and hope that our conversation will bring us closer to God. Regrettably I do not think this is going to happen for this lady, she seems to feel that we are on a path of separation from God, and her Church experience is the only one to be considered. God bless her.