Why should we believe in the results of the Council of Nicea?

[fishmansf]

Seeing that the council of Nicea happened ~300 years after the ressurection of Jesus, why should we believe the conclusion they came to? Additionally did they have a collection of what we might call the New Testaments at the Council that they poured over to come to the conclusion they did, or was it just a bunch of scholars and theologians who came together to discuss trying to pinpoint who Jesus was? (I really dont know some of these answers so I come here looking for a history lesson and an answer to this question).

 

[HTacianas]

Seeing that the council of Nicea happened ~300 years after the ressurection of Jesus, why should we believe the conclusion they came to? Additionally did they have a collection of what we might call the New Testaments at the Council that they poured over to come to the conclusion they did, or was it just a bunch of scholars and theologians who came together to discuss trying to pinpoint who Jesus was? (I really dont know some of these answers so I come here looking for a history lesson and an answer to this question).

The Council of Nicea was made up of bishops from across the Church. They were the successors to the apostles and therefore had the authority to reach the conclusions they did.

The new testament was still being "sorted through" at the time, but most of the participants at Nicea had already accepted those books accepted by the generations before them that ultimately became the new testament.

 

[TuxAme]

It's simple- because bishops, who had teaching authority as the spiritual successors of the apostles, were the ones who called the council and made its proclamations.

 

[disciple Clint]

Seeing that the council of Nicea happened ~300 years after the ressurection of Jesus, why should we believe the conclusion they came to? Additionally did they have a collection of what we might call the New Testaments at the Council that they poured over to come to the conclusion they did, or was it just a bunch of scholars and theologians who came together to discuss trying to pinpoint who Jesus was? (I really dont know some of these answers so I come here looking for a history lesson and an answer to this question).

I see we have several good answers so far but why is it that no one has mentioned the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in making the decisions that were made.

 

[Norbert L]

I believe what's necessary is for people to reach their own conclusions and see if they align in whole or in part with that council. Besides it's not as if over time, gaining understanding and refining what you personally affirm is completely immune to change. There's something called growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[HTacianas]

I see we have several good answers so far but why is it that no one has mentioned the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in making the decisions that were made.

Very good observation!

But my answer, though I failed to mention it, assumes it in that they "had the authority" to make their decisions.

Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

 

[disciple Clint]

I believe what's necessary is for people to reach their own conclusions and see if they align in whole or in part with that council. Besides it's not as if over time, gaining understanding and refining what you personally affirm is completely immune to change. There's something called growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Wouldn't that be inviting everyone to have their very own brand of Christianity? The fact that the decisions made at the councils have held up to numerous challenges over the centuries tends to validate them, wouldn't you say?

 

[TuxAme]

I see we have several good answers so far but why is it that no one has mentioned the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in making the decisions that were made.

That's already assumed.

 

[Radagast]

Why should we believe in the results of the Council of Nicea?

Because the theological decisions are Biblical, and the practical decisions are sensible.

Plus the other reasons already given.

(also, arguing against the Nicene Creed is banned in this Christians-only forum)

Additionally did they have a collection of what we might call the New Testaments at the Council that they poured over to come to the conclusion they did

Yes, the whole New Testament existed, and most of it was accepted as inspired Scripture (with a few debates still going on about a few books).

 

[Sabertooth]

Wouldn't that be inviting everyone to have their very own brand of Christianity? The fact that the decisions made at the councils have held up to numerous challenges over the centuries tends to validate them, wouldn't you say?

The Creed grants enough latitude so denominations can disagree with each other while still embracing its tenets.

I don't think that its descendant churches surrender to them as much as they resonate with them (in the Holy Spirit).

 

[Radagast]

The Creed grants enough latitude so denominations can disagree with each other while still embracing its tenets.

Indeed, but those people who step outside the Creed have stepped outside Christianity.

 

[Sabertooth]

I think of it more as a description of the Church's DNA than an external standard to be met.

If it isn't fundamental to one's church, then they have something else.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The council consisted of as many bishops as Constantine could manage to gather. It was almost unanimous in its conclusions - I think there were three bishops who disagreed after the deliberations, but affirmed it anyway out of Church unity, out of between 270-381 bishops all told (the sources differ a bit on the numbers). The conclusion wasn't forced by Constantine either, as he perhaps had Arian leanings himself, and it is clear a robust debate occured there. I think it quite clear that Nicaea represents the overwhelming consensus view of the fourth century Church, so is the best yardstick to measure the beliefs of the Church prior to this as well.

 

[Norbert L]

Wouldn't that be inviting everyone to have their very own brand of Christianity? The fact that the decisions made at the councils have held up to numerous challenges over the centuries tends to validate them, wouldn't you say?

At our earthly end at death, everyone has to give an account for their own individual beliefs and the resulting actions we took. Romans 14:12

I would point out there are facts today which show that these councils don't stop the creation of groups from having their own brands of Christianity. One of the most popular cases in point, the RCC and the E&O.

Another point in the same fashion. To use the Nicene council within a broad statement of purpose/faith works rather well, look at these forums as an example. It provides a cohesiveness. However we still find different "brands" of Christianity within its' subsections.

I would call the two above examples as living evidence, that the council hasn't stop the creation of brands. It is on the hand only a framework whereby Christians can agreeably discuss things.

 

[tz620q]

Seeing that the council of Nicea happened ~300 years after the ressurection of Jesus, why should we believe the conclusion they came to?

Because it is the Truth. And even then I have the arrow of logic backwards. The Truth, which is Jesus Christ, points us to the conclusions drawn at Nicaea.

Looking at it from another viewpoint, all of us on here have a religious paradigm. Some of us adopt this paradigm from those who have come before us, acknowledging that they were closer to the time and the culture and taught by the apostles. Others on here adopt their own paradigm from their own experiences and reading. The question you must answer is which of these seems the most trustworthy approach?

 

[Tolworth John]

why should we believe the conclusion they came to?

What information do you have that cast doubt on there conclusion?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Remember that Jesus didn't establish a book - He established a Church.

Yes, they had access to all the books of the NT and would have been familiar with them (with the possible exception of Revelation in some cases). Not only that, but more importantly they had been taught what those writings actually meant.

And bottom line - if you can't trust the council of Nicea, then you can't trust Scripture or much of anything else. How do you know the rejected writings aren't true instead? We are many centuries later - we have to put our trust somewhere.

But not only that - there are mountains of writings from the Church beginning at the time of the Apostles and continuing that will verify the issues going on and how they were handled and so on. Becoming familiar with them is soothing - we can see the promised action of the Holy Spirit in the early Church.

Never be afraid to ask questions. There are always good answers. Christianity has nothing to hide. But at times you must guard against wrong or biased answers. That takes more digging to sort things out, but it's there.

 

[The Gryphon]

It is my understanding that the Council of Nicaea determined to forever separate he Christian celebration of Easter from its Jewish roots in the Passover, seemingly forgetting that Jesus and the disciples all celebrated the Passover, the Council stated:

Iit is unbecoming beyond measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious people... We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews... Our worship follows a … more convenient course... We desire, dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews, who are almost certainly blinded." Taken from "Two millennia of Jewish persecution: Anti-Judaism: 70 to 1200 CE, Religious Tolerance website, http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers1.htm; accessed July16, 2014.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It is my understanding that the Council of Nicaea determined to forever separate he Christian celebration of Easter from its Jewish roots in the Passover, seemingly forgetting that Jesus and the disciples all celebrated the Passover, the Council stated:

Iit is unbecoming beyond measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious people... We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews... Our worship follows a … more convenient course... We desire, dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews, who are almost certainly blinded." Taken from "Two millennia of Jewish persecution: Anti-Judaism: 70 to 1200 CE, Religious Tolerance website, http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers1.htm; accessed July16, 2014.

More understanding is needed. The early Church certainly understood the roots in Judaism. But they made changes based on the fulfillment within Christianity. It wasn't about "hating Jews" but it was about distinguishing their faith when necessary. For example the Jews had always fasted on (iirc) Tuesday and Thursday? The Church kept the practice but deliberately changed the day to Wednesday (to mark the betrayal) and Friday (because of the Crucifixion).

We refer to our celebration of the Resurrection as "Pascha" which means Passover. The name hasn't even changed. But very importantly we celebrate the Resurrection now, not the Jewish observance of the Passover. To do otherwise would be to deny Christ as Savior so ... it was quite important to them.

 

[mark kennedy]

Seeing that the council of Nicea happened ~300 years after the ressurection of Jesus, why should we believe the conclusion they came to? Additionally did they have a collection of what we might call the New Testaments at the Council that they poured over to come to the conclusion they did, or was it just a bunch of scholars and theologians who came together to discuss trying to pinpoint who Jesus was? (I really dont know some of these answers so I come here looking for a history lesson and an answer to this question).

It's a solid Biblical statement of faith. It came from the heart of the Apostolic church and the fact that it endured so long to become a creed of the church, pretty much universally agreed to this day, speaks volumes for it's credibility.