Was the Nicene Creed divinely inspired?

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

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?

It was not divinely inspired. It was just a gathering of men in power at that time.

 

[Fireinfolding]

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.

Its just imperfect, being made of a woman, or the word being made flesh, Christ being brought forth of a woman taking on him the nature of the seed of Abraham shouldn't state "begotten not made" in my opinion scripture allows for both words is all. He coming out from God and not of this world and made flesh would suffice. Besides, the word begotten as it pertains to Christ is used more as it relates to after his resurrection than before if you look.

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,

And then here,

Acts 13:33 God hath (( fulfilled )) the same unto us their children,
(( in that )) he hath (( raised up Jesus again));
as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son,
(( this day )) have I (( begotten )) thee.

It just uses both words, whether "made" (of a woman) or "begotten" (after raising him up)

So just as the Word was made flesh (His coming into this world) the day he is begotten (( even this day)) after he was raised up from the dead

(( This day )) have I begotten thee.

Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Only begotten Son and firstborn (whether of Mary, or whether of the many brethren thereafter)

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

These speaking to a little of the same

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Just as we are to "put on" The Lord Jesus

Romans 13:14 But "put ye on"the Lord Jesus Christ

As it says we"put on" the new man

Col 3:10 And have "put on" the new man,
which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that "created him"

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Its just imperfect, being made of a woman, or the word being made flesh, Christ being brought forth of a woman taking on him the nature of the seed of Abraham shouldn't state "begotten not made" in my opinion scripture allows for both words is all. He coming out from God and not of this world and made flesh would suffice. Besides, the word begotten as it pertains to Christ is used more as it relates to after his resurrection than before if you look.

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,

And then here,

Acts 13:33 God hath (( fulfilled )) the same unto us their children,
(( in that )) he hath (( raised up Jesus again));
as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son,
(( this day )) have I (( begotten )) thee.

It just uses both words, whether "made" (of a woman) or "begotten" (after raising him up)

So just as the Word was made flesh (His coming into this world) the day he is begotten (( even this day)) after he was raised up from the dead

(( This day )) have I begotten thee.

Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Only begotten Son and firstborn (whether of Mary, or whether of the many brethren thereafter)

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

These speaking to a little of the same

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Just as we are to "put on" The Lord Jesus

Romans 13:14 But "put ye on"the Lord Jesus Christ

As it says we"put on" the new man

Col 3:10 And have "put on" the new man,
which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that "created him"

The 'begotten' clause of the creed is in reference to Christ's eternal generation from the Father and specifically against the idea of Arius that there was a time when the Son did not exist. That was the conflict which the council fathers were attempting to resolve in the initial version of the creed which goes so far as to excommunicate anyone who affirmed a form of Arianism.

It was not divinely inspired. It was just a gathering of men at that time.

Question, was God with his Church during this time?

 

[Fireinfolding]

The 'begotten' clause of the creed is in reference to Christ's eternal generation from the Father and specifically against the idea of Arius that there was a time when the Son did not exist. That was the conflict which the council fathers were attempting to resolve in the initial version of the creed which goes so far as to excommunicate anyone who affirmed a form of Arianism.



Question, was God with his Church during this time?

It might have been more helpful to say the begotten word (not the made word) of this creed is in reference to a particular scripture and provide that.

Is it Psalm 2:7 you mean?

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

Question, was God with his Church during this time?

Surely! This time and any time. Ekklesia is a global Body of all true beleivers.

 

[AKAP]

No, the NC is not divinely inspired or scriptural or supported by Scripture in the least. And then I ask myself, why is it recited in the first place as a form of faith loyalty pledge to a man-inspired creed over the inspiration and faith in the word of God. I prefer the real thing.
Further, I would venture to say with confidence that there are many growing believers that recite this creed or ponders on this trinity or Triune God concept of similar text then get confused on the Jesus they supposed to believe in. This could be major obstacle for those hoping in or seeking salvation and eternal life. In other words how can you really believe in Jesus Christ per scripture with a Trinity concept staring you in your face? ....personally I go directly to scripture for what brand of Christ I 'need' to believe in. I've been down this trinity path and conversation with others for over 30 years now..

 

[seeking.IAM]

The books of our New Testament were not handed down on tablets or black leather bound books on Mount Sinai. They are thought to be authored over a span of 50 years by various men of God who were without a doubt inspired by God to put oral tradition to paper. Other men of God sat in critical evaluation of available texts to decide which would make the cut to be included in Holy scripture and which would not. Still other men of God deliberated to forge the creed that defines our faith. I don't see how anyone can think one is any less divinely inspired than the other.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The books of our New Testament were not handed down on tablets or black leather bound books on Mount Sinai. They are thought to be authored over a span of 50 years by various men of God who were without a doubt inspired by God to put oral tradition to paper. Other men of God sat in critical evaluation of available texts to decide which would make the cut to be included in Holy scripture and which would not. Still other men of God deliberated to forge the creed that defines our faith. I don't see how anyone can think one is any less divinely inspired than the other.

That's way beyond even a Catholic understanding of the matter. We distinguish between Scripture which is inspired, and the lesser works of canonization and defining creeds. The holy men and women in a historical process that resulted in an infallibly chosen canon, and the bishops at Nicea were kept from error in the course of their using their skills to figure out canon and creed. But it wasn't necessarily inspiration that got them there. It was the restraining arm of the Holy Spirit.

 

[seeking.IAM]

How can one say, "These men were inspired by God and these men were not?"

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Surely! This time and any time. Ekklesia is a global Body of all true beleivers.

Were the men who formed the creed part of the Church?

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

Were the men who formed the creed part of the Church?

Constantine's maphia?? I highly doubt it. They butchered the true teaching of Jesus... The dreaded Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed... Lie upon lie... The beginning of amalgamation with Paganism.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Constantine's maphia?? I highly doubt it. They butchered the true teaching of Jesus... The dreaded Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed... Lie upon lie... The beginning of amalgamation with Paganism.

Butchered how exactly? If the Church wasn't the one at Nicaea (which was the Church of the Ante Nicene writers) where was the real Church? What was it's name? What did it believe? What did it confess? We know what many groups believed back then so you should be able to point to one group.

 

[chevyontheriver]

How can one say, "These men were inspired by God and these men were not?"

How can we say that everything your minister says is not Scripture? It's the same question really. I AM saying that in a council of the whole Church what those folks concluded is infallible with respect to faith and morals. Not the exact last word, by the way, but certainly trustworthy, and that because the Holy Spirit kept them from error. That's pretty good. But it does not come to the level of inspiration.

 

[seeking.IAM]

... Not the exact last word, by the way, but certainly trustworthy, and that because the Holy Spirit kept them from error. That's pretty good. But it does not come to the level of inspiration.

How does the Holy Spirit keeping them from error differ from divine inspiration? Perhaps you could explain how you define "inspiration?" I still don't get it.

 

[JoeP222w]

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?

No, the Nicene Creed is not God-breathed scripture. While the Nicene Creed may and does contain truths of the Christian faith, it is not part of the canon of scripture.

God never calls or commands us to trust in the Nicene Creed as perfect and without error. God commands us to believe His inerrant word of the Bible.

 

[AKAP]

Butchered how exactly? If the Church wasn't the one at Nicaea (which was the Church of the Ante Nicene writers) where was the real Church? What was it's name? What did it believe? What did it confess? We know what many groups believed back then so you should be able to point to one group.

Great question and it is one of those $1 million dollar variety.
The true body of Christ is sometimes looked down upon by religious institutions as being a cult or a fringe groups or individuals. They are very much de-centralized and for a very good reason (I won't answer that here). And they are world-wide.
It has no formal outward trimmings except thay are believers that love to speak to others of their kind, about Christ and the word of God preferrably in private settings and forums.
They are the 'called out' ones of God.
They are not part of any popular or universal Greek goddess of fertility and mother earth, derived word called 'Ceres' or later callled 'kirk' that we call 'the church' today.
They have no distinguishing marks or appearances or clothing to know them by. There is one common feature though, they all have the spirit of truth within them. I guess that is hard or impossible to 'see' by most. So you won't find very many of them in any of the many hundreds of world book registered religious institutions. Yes, there are some....

 

[Neogaia777]

If your gonna say they were inspired writings then the question becomes why not more and other inspired writings than that through the ages to now and in the future...? Why can't someone today come up with divinely inspired writings with the same authority as scripture...?

So, I can see where the OP is trying to go with this, however I do not claim to know either way...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

I've often wondered if some song lyrics could be divinely inspired writings or not...?

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

Butchered how exactly? If the Church wasn't the one at Nicaea (which was the Church of the Ante Nicene writers) where was the real Church? What was it's name? What did it believe? What did it confess? We know what many groups believed back then so you should be able to point to one group.

True church is all believers in Jesus that have Holy Spirit in them. They are part of the Bride of Christ. God knows them. We don't know them individually and can't know as we are not able to see hearts of people, but only or Heavenly Father can do so. We are merely humans and must admit our limitations and not to play God, which is the highest sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit...

There is only one name to the true ekklesia of God - Yeshua ha Mashiach!!! Aka Iisous Christos... For ever and ever!!! There is no other names!!!

All other self-assumed names, designations, basis of authority etc. are from satan and are a lie and must be dropped like a bottle of potassium cyanide.

 

[Apex]

If your gonna say they were inspired writings then the question becomes why not more and other inspired writings than that through the ages to now and in the future...? Why can't someone today come up with divinely inspired writings with the same authority as scripture...?

So, I can see where the OP is trying to go with this, however I do not claim to know either way...?

God Bless!

This is all very interesting to talk about. Is the canon closed? Was the selecting of the canon divinely inspired? What happens if we find another letter that we feel confident was written by Paul? Also, why would God allow a piece of Scripture to be hidden for so long? But we know Paul wrote other letters, were they not inspired Scripture because they didn't get preserved like his others?