Was the Nicene Creed divinely inspired?

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

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?

Other letters didn't pass the criteria of corresponding to the doctrines held by the priests under Constantine at the time of the councils in Nicaea of 325 and Constantinople of 381.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

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....

This is an assumption that you would need to demonstrate and need to reconcile with scripture. We don't see a decentralised Church or a group of bodies fully autonomous and independent from each other in Acts or the epistles of Paul, but we see a single body, differences there might have been with authorities set over them, be that Paul or the Apostles.

If you are going to propose such a decentralised Church, which you cannot demonstrate to have actually existed, as being the one true Church during the time of Constantine then you are appealing to a phantom, something that didn't really exist. Where was this church during the Diocletian persecution? The Nicene fathers (many of whom survived the persecution) were testifying and suffering for Christ publicly. This mythical Church you have constructed has avoided mention, has avoided testifying for Christ, preferring to hide and protect itself?

We who believe in the historical Church can point to many and show you where Christ was victorious over those who persecuted him. Who can you point to except for an idea you have which you cannot substantiate?

It should be obvious that the Nicene fathers represented the true Church.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

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.

If we can't know the Church why did Paul and the Apostles think they could know the Church? If it is known only to God in the strictest sense then you cannot tell me for certain that you are part of the Church or that the Fathers of Nicaea were merely men proclaiming the words of men. Who are you to tell them they weren't Christians? You're just a mere man right with no guarantee that your part of the Church no?

 

[AKAP]

This is an assumption that you would need to demonstrate and need to reconcile with scripture. We don't see a decentralised Church or a group of bodies fully autonomous and independent from each other in Acts or the epistles of Paul, but we see a single body, differences there might have been with authorities set over them, be that Paul or the Apostles.

If you are going to propose such a decentralised Church, which you cannot demonstrate to have actually existed, as being the one true Church during the time of Constantine then you are appealing to a phantom, something that didn't really exist. Where was this church during the Diocletian persecution? The Nicene fathers (many of whom survived the persecution) were testifying and suffering for Christ publicly. This mythical Church you have constructed has avoided mention, has avoided testifying for Christ, preferring to hide and protect itself?

We who believe in the historical Church can point to many and show you where Christ was victorious over those who persecuted him. Who can you point to except for an idea you have which you cannot substantiate?

It should be obvious that the Nicene fathers represented the true Church.

Well I believe you are not understanding what I'm really saying. It seems you are indoctrinated in a world spiritual view of 'the church' created by men and not by the spirit of God. Jesus never ordained or subscribed to a world man-made church. That would make his words hypocritical. He already condemned the Pharisees for their religion and their practice of the 'traditions of men.' I believe he would also condemn what was created in the 4th century as well.

Forget the Nicene fathers from the end of the 2nd century till the 4th...they were not necessarily 'Christians' anyway....more like believers in Greek philosophies they melded with scripture to push this creed of theirs...there was never any named 'Church' preceding these men until Catholicism was born out of politics and control of the masses....another story
The point I'm attempting to make is that since the disciples and post 70 AD the true 'Church' has always thrived 'underground' away from the world and the attractions of politics and such...against the spirit of the world. And the second point is that they are here among us today living in the same way.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Well I believe you are not understanding what I'm really saying. It seems you are indoctrinated in a world spiritual view of 'the church' created by men and not by the spirit of God. Jesus never ordained or subscribed to a world man-made church. That would make his words hypocritical. He already condemned the Pharisees for their religion and their practice of the 'traditions of men.' I believe he would also condemn what was created in the 4th century as well.

Forget the Nicene fathers from the end of the 2nd century till the 4th...they were not necessarily 'Christians' anyway....more like believers in Greek philosophies they melded with scripture to push this creed of theirs...there was never any named 'Church' preceding these men until Catholicism was born out of politics and control of the masses....another story
The point I'm attempting to make is that since the disciples and post 70 AD the true 'Church' has always thrived 'underground' away from the world and the attractions of politics and such...against the spirit of the world. And the second point is that they are here among us today living in the same way.

Your repulsion to the word man, makes me think you believe the Church to be composed of Spirits alone and not actual men whom were given a commission to look after the sheep. Are we reading the same Bible? Who did Jesus entrust with ministry of his body after he ascended? his apostles no? Were they radically decentralised leaders who left Churches to themselves after they had established them? No, since we see them decreeing for the Church as a whole what to do with Gentiles and we see Paul execute episcopal authority when it comes to the Corinthians (though he wasn't a Bishop).

As much as you condemn the council fathers of Nicaea I see nothing that you are actually condemning them for. Accusing them of Greek Philosophy is extremely vague and is a charge we could level at Paul. Was he a syncrtetist for appealing on mars hill to the unknown God and saying that was the God of the universe whom they should come to know? Origen, despite his influence was largely rejected and his more spurious ideas effectively wiped from the Church's theology.

If you are going to dismiss the visible Church, which we actually see in history doing the things of God, protecting the bible, dying for Christ, suffering for Christ, giving up the world for Christ in the form of Monasticism, changing the Roman empire itself from one of pagan orientation to that of the true God and instead say the invisible Church which history has not recorded is true (despite having done nothing that testifies to the power of God) then what argument do you have? What is the legacy which Christ left? is it merely one of a corrupt man made Church that will always flourish against the secret believers who accomplish nothing? Seems like it to me.

The council of Nicaea represents in Christianity a serious attempt to grapple with the question of who the son is. Where was the true Church to answer this most important question? Why did they remain in hiding while the Homousians, Homoiousians and Heterousians were fighting it out? What has the true Church for humanity?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

In what sense did they know it? In their day, there were no denominations. Jesus didn't start dividing in the warped minds of sinful people... And when those satanic denominations and divisions and confessions and parties within faith of Christ started appearing, St Apostle Paul harshly critisized these events as coming from the adversary. "Not Paul's, not Cepha's, not Apollos's, but only belonging to Jesus and Jesus only"? No other name, no other designation, no other division or identity. Solo Iisous Christos!! Paul and the Apostles knew the visible ekklesia, but they clearly understood that it consists of sheep and goats, "those who left us were not of us"... It's a mix of seeds and shells. Only Jesus sees the true Bride 100%.



You are absolutely right. I retain my opinion as opinion only, that's why I said "I doubt it". I can guess looking at their sinful satanic deeds of division and robbing God of His glory, but I might be wrong. I'm a mere man, and my opinion is nothing but a nothing's opinion. God is everything. He knows. Let all glory be to Him for ever and ever.

You haven't been reading the bible closely enough if you think the Apostolic Church was universally united on every level. That there were heretics who opposed the apostles (the so called super Apostles or those who were trying to convince the galatians that in order to become true followers of Christ they had to become circumcised) is obvious if you read the text closely. If the Apostles were able to distinguish between themselves and others why can't we distinguish who the Church is (apparently) after they passed away? So denominations, factionalism, were there from the start, yet we understand who attained to the faith because the Apostles held authority. Thus apostolicity became important for the second century Church against the Gnostics. Ironic that you should dismiss denominations when you are a denomination in of yourself by separating yourself from all previously existing ones and maintaining you alone in the world hold to the truth.

I still see no justification for your dismissal of the Nicene fathers. If the Nicene fathers can be dismissed because they belonged to one specific faction within the Church which prevailed over those who disagree then the Apostles ought to be dismissed on the same basis.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Is the canon closed?

Permanently closed. No adds. No deletions. Except for people that do add or delete.

Was the selecting of the canon divinely inspired?

Not inspired but guided by the Holy Spirit to be correct, or at least not incorrect.

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?

Such a thing would be an interesting historical document but no Scripture.

 

[Galilee63]

Yes

Holy, Divinely Delivered by Jesus God our Heavenly Father Holy Spirit

Much more than our Holy Affirmation of Love Faith and Trust in Jesus God and Holy Spirit in Gods Holy Heaven

Hebrews / Catholics

Some Christians my Brothers and Sisters in Jesus do not comprehend in particular some of whom may be Protestant in practice that Hebrews are in the Holy Lineage of Catholics - Catholicism - Hebrews - All of Jesus God Holy Spirits Holy Ways Holy Practices and Holy Teachings including Jesus Holy Blessed Sacraments in which Jesus Himself is Present with Jesus appearing with Holy Spirit and our Blessed Virgin Mother Mary to Gods Holy Saints delivering His Holy Prayers and Holy Requests all directly reflecting Gods Holy Scriptures

Every Holy Prayer reflecting Gods Holy Word delivered by Jesus God Holy Spirit have more Holy Mysteries in God Himself as does Gods Holy Word than we will ever fathom or hope to ever know unless in Gods Holy Will

We are not wise and know nothing

 

[seashale76]

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?

If you believe that those at that particular council were inspired by the Holy Spirit to affirm the scriptures- then you would also have to believe those same individuals were also led to affirm the faith via the creed at the same council. The Holy Spirit doesn't stop working through Christ's Church just because it is inconvenient to people 2000 years later.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Well I believe you are not understanding what I'm really saying. It seems you are indoctrinated in a world spiritual view of 'the church' created by men and not by the spirit of God. Jesus never ordained or subscribed to a world man-made church. That would make his words hypocritical. He already condemned the Pharisees for their religion and their practice of the 'traditions of men.' I believe he would also condemn what was created in the 4th century as well.

Forget the Nicene fathers from the end of the 2nd century till the 4th...they were not necessarily 'Christians' anyway....more like believers in Greek philosophies they melded with scripture to push this creed of theirs...there was never any named 'Church' preceding these men until Catholicism was born out of politics and control of the masses....another story
The point I'm attempting to make is that since the disciples and post 70 AD the true 'Church' has always thrived 'underground' away from the world and the attractions of politics and such...against the spirit of the world. And the second point is that they are here among us today living in the same way.

So do these true followers of Jesus use a Bible consisting of sixty-six books?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

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 a faithful confession of the catholic and apostolic faith; as it is faithful to the faith delivered from the beginning it is most certainly true. I wouldn't call it "divinely inspired", in part because the concept of inspiration means different things depending on who you ask. If one means that the Creed is the result of the Spirit keeping the Church in true faith and the working of the Spirit through the life and faith of the Church out of which the symbol of orthodoxy came about, then I'd have no trouble referring to it as inspired; if one conceives of inspiration as some kind of divine dictation then, no, the Creed is not inspired.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread has had a clean up of problem posts. As a reminder, the site rules include:
​

Christians Only Forums
There are forums reserved for Christian members only. Please do not post in these forums unless you are truly a Christian (please see our Statement of Faith to know exactly what that is). Unorthodox, non-Nicene Christian theology may only be discussed in the Controversial Theology forum.​

 

[FreeinChrist]

I cleaned up more.

Stop it now!

 

[PuerAzaelis]

Is it possible for it to be in error?

The truth of the Nicene Creed and the divine inspiration of the Nicene Creed are not necessarily cognate. Many things which are true are not part of revelation.