Was the Nicene Creed divinely inspired?

[PloverWing]

I am not saying parts of the creed are not true. I'm just curious about the integrity of the creed itself. For example, CF has deemed it necessary to clarify what "catholic" and "one baptism for the remission of sins" means. Instead of the asterix, why don't modern Christians just add these clarifying marks into the creed itself? Or at least update the wording?

I think there's a sense of wanting to respect the early theologians and the language they used to express their ideas.

If Jesus had come to earth in Europe in 1800, say, instead of Palestine in the first century, and we were now for the first time working out the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity, the theology might not use the philosophical concepts of "substance" and "essence", and probably wouldn't be written in Greek and Latin; the language would probably be French or German, using categories of thought taken from 19th and 20th century philosophy.

The church fathers did their work in Greek and Latin, using particular categories of thought taken from the Greek philosophy popular at the time. Their work was very careful and precise, and I don't want to lose any of the insights they had as they worked through these difficult doctrines. As we translate their documents into English, I'm willing to see small clarifying changes made (e.g., "for us men and for our salvation" being replaced by "for us and for our salvation"), but no large changes. If we start making large revisions to the language, I'd be afraid we'd disrupt the careful structures that the church fathers created.

When change and clarification are necessary, I generally prefer to leave the early documents unchanged, and add newer theological statements to the church's great body of work, so that both the old and the new are preserved.

 

[Apex]

I think there's a sense of wanting to respect the early theologians and the language they used to express their ideas.

If Jesus had come to earth in Europe in 1800, say, instead of Palestine in the first century, and we were now for the first time working out the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity, the theology might not use the philosophical concepts of "substance" and "essence", and probably wouldn't be written in Greek and Latin; the language would probably be French or German, using categories of thought taken from 19th and 20th century philosophy.

The church fathers did their work in Greek and Latin, using particular categories of thought taken from the Greek philosophy popular at the time. Their work was very careful and precise, and I don't want to lose any of the insights they had as they worked through these difficult doctrines. As we translate their documents into English, I'm willing to see small clarifying changes made (e.g., "for us men and for our salvation" being replaced by "for us and for our salvation"), but no large changes. If we start making large revisions to the language, I'd be afraid we'd disrupt the careful structures that the church fathers created.

When change and clarification are necessary, I generally prefer to leave the early documents unchanged, and add newer theological statements to the church's great body of work, so that both the old and the new are preserved.

I like this answer. I get the mentality that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." However, I certainly think that we have increased our understanding of certain doctrines and consider our moden insight just as important. Your suggestion is workable, but it runs contrary to the purpose of a creed - to have a single, clear, concise, and definitive statement of essential faith points. I like the idea of a living document, just as the church is a growing and living body. Thanks!

 

[stuart lawrence]

As a succinct statement of faith, those who composed this creed had to make several interpretational and semantic decisions. I happen to agree with them, but...

Was the Nicene Creed divinely inspired?
If so, does this make it equal to divinely inspired Scripture?
If not, how can we trust it is perfectly without error?

Personally I don't look to creed's, just go by what the Bible states. But then since being taken to church from as long as I can remember, I've never belonged to a church that does recite creeds

 

[Apex]

Personally I don't look to creed's, just go by what the Bible states. But then since being taken to church from as long as I can remember, I've never belonged to a church that does recite creeds

I think they are very important. It gives us a historical snapshot of what the church believed at various times. I'm not for erasing old versions, but perhaps revisiting them every 100 years or so.

 

[Apex]

Slightly off topic, but back to the clarification CF provides to "one baptism for the remission of sins". They note "May be interpreted as baptism is a matter of obedience and not a requirement for salvation or as a regenerating ordinance." Is this how the creators of the creed understood it?

 

[GingerBeer]

Was the Nicene Creed divinely inspired?

No. That is why the creeds are not canonical scripture for any Christian. But the creeds contain truth revealed by God. They derive it from the scriptures and from the practices of the church. So the creeds are reliable teachers of truth revealed by God.

 

[GingerBeer]

Slightly off topic, but back to the clarification CF provides to "one baptism for the remission of sins". They note "May be interpreted as baptism is a matter of obedience and not a requirement for salvation or as a regenerating ordinance." Is this how the creators of the creed understood it?

No that is not how the writers of the Nicene creed understood baptism. For them baptism was being born from above and a necessary part of one's salvation though they understood baptism to include being bathed in the blood of one's own martyrdom and also covering one who dies before the church has administered baptism but who intended to be baptised (form example, a person who died in an accident some days before the day of his scheduled baptism).

 

[chevyontheriver]

As a succinct statement of faith, those who composed this creed had to make several interpretational and semantic decisions. I happen to agree with them, but...

Was the Nicene Creed divinely inspired?
If so, does this make it equal to divinely inspired Scripture?
If not, how can we trust it is perfectly without error?

The Nicene Creed is infallible, not inspired. It is not the equivalent of Scripture. You can trust it because of the infallibility of those bishops in council. God protected them from screwing up, from going the Arian way. Emperor Constantine wanted an Arian compromise. He didn't get what he wanted, they were preserved from that error. So you can use the Nicene Creed with confidence even though it is not Bible.

 

[Apex]

The Nicene Creed is infallible, not inspired.

Can something be inerrant and not really be inspired? Is not the divine inspiration that which makes it infallible?

 

[Apex]

No that is not how the writers of the Nicene creed understood baptism. For them baptism was being born from above and a necessary part of one's salvation though they understood baptism to include being bathed in the blood of one's own martyrdom and also covering one who dies before the church has administered baptism but who intended to be baptised (form example, a person who died in an accident some days before the day of his scheduled baptism).

Well, one thing is for sure, they both can't be correct. It seems like CF acknowledges that one must be wrong, but they don't take a side on which one it is. Interesting...

 

[GingerBeer]

Can something be inerrant and not really be inspired? Is not the divine inspiration that which makes it infallible?

1 = 1. That is a fact. It is true. It is "infallible" and "inerrant". My point here is that what is true is true no matter who says it or when it is said. Infallibility and inerrancy are attributes belonging to truth. Thus the Nicene creed can be infallible and inerrant simply by being true.

 

[mark kennedy]

As a succinct statement of faith, those who composed this creed had to make several interpretational and semantic decisions. I happen to agree with them, but...

Was the Nicene Creed divinely inspired?
If so, does this make it equal to divinely inspired Scripture?
If not, how can we trust it is perfectly without error?

The Nicene Creed was strictly in line with the Scriptures, they are not mutually exclusive. I don't see a hint of an error, if you see one let's hear it.

 

[stuart lawrence]

The Nicene Creed was strictly in line with the Scriptures, they are not mutually exclusive. I don't see a hint of an error, if you see one let's hear it.

Now this is eternal life, that they may know you( the father) the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent
John17:3

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

no, it is not.

it's simply an accurate confession of biblical principles.

you find this out by doing what scripture instructs you to do in testing all things against God's Word.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Can something be inerrant and not really be inspired? Is not the divine inspiration that which makes it infallible?

Mathematics isn't generally considered to be inspired, but for the most part it has been proven to be inerrant.

Infallibility is a negative sort of thing. Not that it is positively inspired, but only that the Holy Spirit somehow prevented an error.

 

[Fireinfolding]

The Nicene Creed was strictly in line with the Scriptures, they are not mutually exclusive. I don't see a hint of an error, if you see one let's hear it.

The creed states as if final authority "begotten, not made" somehow being a big "no no" to use the word "made", but both pertain to Christ and both are shown in scripture

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

So begotten and made are both used

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.

The Apostles weren't as word nuts as those that come after them.

I have witnessed the creed used as a chopping block and making someone an offender for a word when scripture might use it or make them an offender for word refusing one not used by scripture.

 

[Dkh587]

No

 

[Winken]

The Word of God (commentary)

He appeared on earth; those of the Chosen Race did not receive Him, except for a few. To those He granted the right to Spiritual birth, not as the result of human desire or will, but of God.

Having appeared as flesh, He then dwelled among us; We saw His Glory, the Glory of the Spiritually conceived One of the Father, embodying Grace and Truth.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It not being inspired on the same level of scripture does not make it non authoritative. It's not Scripture vs the Church, it's scripture and the Church. If we desire to belong to the Church which Christ founded, we will confess the Church's creed.

 

[PloverWing]

The creed states as if final authority "begotten, not made" somehow being a big "no no" to use the word "made", but both pertain to Christ and both are shown in scripture

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

So begotten and made are both used

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.

The Apostles weren't as word nuts as those that come after them.

I have witnessed the creed used as a chopping block and making someone an offender for a word when scripture might use it or make them an offender for word refusing one not used by scripture.

The Nicene Creed goes on to say "by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man", echoing the words of John 1:14. The objection isn't to the word "made" in itself. Rather, the creed is emphasizing that the Word is not a created being, but existed from all eternity alongside the Father, and is of the same "being" or "substance" as the Father.

With that said, I agree that using the creed (and orthodoxy in general) as a "chopping block" is an unhappy thing.