Why the Nicene Creed should be REJECTED as a litmus test for Christianity.

[Diakoneo]

The following is part of my defense of Christianity to be presented to Erwin regarding the "definition" of "Christian".

The Nicene Creed should be rejected as the "SOLE" basis for defining "Christian":

Here is the rule:
6.2 We use the contents of the Nicene Creed as a set of criteria to define who can post in the "Christians Only" forums. The Nicene Creed has been used for millenia by the church to define the boundaries of orthodoxy within Christianity. The contents of the Nicene Creed conveniently summarizes the main doctrines found in the Bible that are held by Evangelical Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christianity. The Nicene Creed itself has been used since the beginning of church history to battle heresy. It summarizes issues like the Trinitarian nature of God, the Divinity of Christ and other basic doctrines of mainstream Christianity that are agreed upon by all major Christian denominations and churches. We do not expect members who want to post in the "Christians Only" forums to accept or affirm the actual Creed - we expect them to agree to its contents only which are based on the Bible.

Here is Argument "a"

a) While the Nicene creed may be sufficient to "define the boundaries of orthodoxy within Christianity" it is not sufficient to define what makes a person "Christian".

Here is the Creed (copied from the "rules" page):

6.3 The Nicene Creed (with scriptural references as it is based on the Bible)


We believe in (Romans 10: 8-10; 1 John 4: 15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6: 4, Ephesians 4: 6)
Father (Matthew 6: 9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6: 3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1: 1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1: 15-16)

And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11: 17)
Son of God, (Mathew 14: 33; 16: 16)
Only-Begotten, (John 1: 18; 3: 16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1: 2)
Light from Light; (Psalm 27: 1; John 8: 12; Matthew 17: 2,5)
True God from True God; (John 17: 1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1: 18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10: 30)
through whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1: 1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1 Timothy 2: 4-5)
came down from heaven, (John 6: 33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary (Luke 1: 35)
and became man. (John 1: 14)
And He was crucified for us (Mark 15: 25; 1 Corinthians 15: 3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19: 6)
suffered, (Mark 8: 31)
and was buried. (Luke 23: 53; 1 Corinthians 15: 4)
And on the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures, (Luke 24: 1 1 Corinthians 15: 4)
and ascended into heaven, (Luke 24: 51; Acts 1: 10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father; (Mark 16: 19; Acts 7: 55)
and He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24: 27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10: 42; 2 Timothy 4: 1)
Whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1: 11)

And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14: 26)
Lord, (Acts 5: 3-4)
Giver of Life, (Genesis 1: 2)
Who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; (John 15: 26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3: 16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19: 20; Ezekiel 11: 5,13)

In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2: 5,9)
catholic*, (Mark 16: 15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2: 42; Ephesians 2: 19-22)

I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins**. (Ephesians 4: 5; Acts 2: 38)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11: 24; 1 Corinthians 15: 12-49; Hebrews 6: 2; Revelation 20: 5)
and the life in the age to come. (Mark 10: 29-30)

AMEN. (Psalm 106: 48)

(a - cont'd)

The proof that the Nicene Creed does not suffice as a definition for one's "Chritianity" -

There is nothing in the Nicene Creed that is untrue. Nothing in the Creed that the Devil Himself will not acknowledge as true.

James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Therefore, if the Devil Himself would agree to the truth within the Nicene Creed; it can not suffice as a definition of those things which make one a Christian. Truth exists regardless of belief. One does not need to simply believe that there is a "God" - one must come to God, acknowledging sin and begging for remission. To define God is not to trust in God.

The Creed holds no information on the means of salvation. We would hold that there are certain heresies alive today which would prevent a person from being "Saved" - we find these in all sorts of cults and false religions. However, many in these cults and false religions would agree to the truth of the contents of the creed. If then the false agrees that the creed holds truth we see again that the creed itself is insufficient to define a "Christian" - follower of Christ.

-------

Argument to continue

 

[Bulldog]

The Creed holds no information on the means of salvation. We would hold thatt here are certain heresies alive today which would prevent a person from being "Saved" - we find these in all sorts of cults and false religions. However, many in these cults and false religions would agree to the truth of the contents of the creed. If then the false agrees that the creed holds truth we see again that the creed itself is insufficient to define a "Christian" - follower of Christ.

There is no "litus test" for salvation - the best we can do is look at a person's fruit (works), which we cannot (as far as I know, at least) do through the internet.

 

[seebs]

("litmus". No "p".)

I don't think it's necessarily true that the Devil would accept the Creed.

Here is the problem: The word "Christian" refers by definition to people who hold certain beliefs. As you rightly note, these beliefs may not guarantee salvation; it is quite likely that the demons hold them.

I do not believe we can define "Christian" so that it excludes all unsaved entities, and still be able to tell who is or is not Christian. The Creed, as you note, gives no information on the means of salvation.

That said: I do not agree that there are any heresies which would prevent a person from being saved. Just as true beliefs cannot guarantee salvation, false beliefs cannot make it impossible.

[bible]Romans 8:38-39[/bible]

Things present or things to come; whatever they are, they cannot stand against the love of God.

 

[Diakoneo]

There is no "litus test" for salvation - the best we can do is look at a person's fruit (works), which we cannot (as far as I know, at least) do through the internet.

While I, and the Bible, would disagree with you - that's not the point of this thread. The point is - does the Nicene creed suffice as a definition for those who are considered "Christian"? The answer, through argument, is no.

 

[seebs]

The Nicene Creed suffices just fine, in that it is the basis of membership in the club.

There is no guarantee that all "Christians" are saved:

[bible]Matthew 25:44-45[/bible]

These people were "Christians", and called Christ Lord. Apparently, their words were empty.

 

[novcncy]

The Nicene Creed suffices just fine, in that it is the basis of membership in the club.

There is no guarantee that all "Christians" are saved:

What seebs said. Are you sure you're not just trying to win an argument with someone?

 

[Bulldog]

While I, and the Bible, would disagree with you - that's not the point of this thread. The point is - does the Nicene creed suffice as a definition for those who are considered "Christian"? The answer, through argument, is no.

No, but it's the best we've got.

 

[Diakoneo]

The Nicene Creed suffices just fine, in that it is the basis of membership in the club.

No it does not. Which is the point

There is no guarantee that all "Christians" are saved:

Matthew 25:44-4544 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

These people were "Christians", and called Christ Lord. Apparently, their words were empty.

Exactly!

 

[novcncy]

Exactly!

So on one hand, you agree (^) that there is no way to weed out the tares from the wheat. It is rightly realized that is impossible for anyone but the Judge.

But on the other hand, you fault the Nicene Creed BECAUSE it does not do the very thing we agree is impossible for man to do!

So I can't help but be confused, and wonder what you're trying to accomplish.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I'm not sure I understand where the argument is intended to lead. Diakoneo, do you think CF should employ a different test in order to assure that only "saved" persons participate in the CO forums?

 

[seebs]

No it does not. Which is the point

Sure it does. It is a test for Christianity, not for salvation.

Exactly!

Well, then. There are Christians who are not "saved". So the fact that the Creed does not guarantee salvation is not a problem.

 

[Diakoneo]

Sure it does. It is a test for Christianity, not for salvation.



Well, then. There are Christians who are not "saved". So the fact that the Creed does not guarantee salvation is not a problem.

Christianity in the basest definition refers to those who are saved the two "Christianity - Salvation" are essentially the same.

There are no Christians who are not "saved" although there are many surely who call themselves Christians who actually are not (Christians) - and are not saved. The problem is that the Creed is insufficient to define who "can post in Christian only areas" - because it does not define those who are Christian. It defines (some of the) Orthodox beliefs of Christianity - but not enough. I can agree with the Creed and be anti-Christian at the same time. I can recognize the truth of it and agree that it is true, yet reject its influence. So then, if I fly a non-Christian icon I should be permitted to post in this area because I am willing to say that the Creed is true. And further the non-Christian, who yet affirms the truth of the Creed, can come in here and sow all kinds of discord.

The rule as to who can or cannot post in the "Christians Only" area - needs to be ammended. That is the point.

 

[seebs]

Christianity in the basest definition refers to those who are saved the two "Christianity - Salvation" are essentially the same.

No. Christianity refers to people who hold Christian beliefs.

There are no Christians who are not "saved" although there are many surely who call themselves Christians who actually are not (Christians) - and are not saved.

This is not how the word is defined. The word "Christian" refers to people who hold specific beliefs. As you note, not all people who hold these beliefs are saved. But the word is defined in terms of beliefs, not in terms of salvation.

The problem is that the Creed is insufficient to define who "can post in Christian only areas" - because it does not define those who are Christian. It defines (some of the) Orthodox beliefs of Christianity - but not enough. I can agree with the Creed and be anti-Christian at the same time. I can recognize the truth of it and agree that it is true, yet reject its influence. So then, if I fly a non-Christian icon I should be permitted to post in this area because I am willing to say that the Creed is true. And further the non-Christian, who yet affirms the truth of the Creed, can come in here and sow all kinds of discord.

The rule as to who can or cannot post in the "Christians Only" area - needs to be ammended. That is the point.

If God ever gets an account here, we can ask Him to sort this out for us. Until then, we must use some other standard. The Creed has worked as a definition of "Christianity" for over one and a half millennia, and I don't think we need to change it.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I was raised with the idea that Christian = saved. Lifelong Mennonites would get up in church and give a testimony of how they "became a Christian." We were taught that only the "saved" were "true Christians."

So I understand the two different ways the word "Christian" can be used. Arguing over the definition of the word "Christian" is not going to get us anywhere WRT CF posting rules. Here's why:

Assume I agree with Diakoneo that the Nicene Creed is not a proper litmus test for Christianity, and that being "saved" is. Now, tell me who, other than God, can perform the new litmus test?

As I see it, it is impossible for an internet forum to apply a litmus test for salvation, so I can't imagine what kind of test Diakoneo might be intending to propose.

 

[seebs]

Liz is right; even if we switch to the other usage, it doesn't allow us to create an enforceable rule.

 

[Diakoneo]

I was raised with the idea that Christian = saved. Lifelong Mennonites would get up in church and give a testimony of how they "became a Christian." We were taught that only the "saved" were "true Christians."

So I understand the two different ways the word "Christian" can be used. Arguing over the definition of the word "Christian" is not going to get us anywhere WRT CF posting rules. Here's why:

Assume I agree with Diakoneo that the Nicene Creed is not a proper litmus test for Christianity, and that being "saved" is. Now, tell me who, other than God, can perform the new litmus test?

As I see it, it is impossible for an internet forum to apply a litmus test for salvation, so I can't imagine what kind of test Diakoneo might be intending to propose.

I'm not proposing any kind of test to determine a person's eternal destiny - because, as has been noted, it is impossible to know individually who is saved, except yourself. However it is not impossible to determine which ... organizations or groups hold to Biblical Christianity - consider that using the creed was the method chosen to do just that (hence the "based on the Bible"). Let the Bible be the judge. Using the Creed alone we find that there are groups which are both considered "Christian" (according to belief in the tenets of the Creed) yet which are also Fire and Ice - Black and White - Complete Opposites. How can this be if the Creed is a sufficient definition of both? That is the crux of the problem - the creed alone is insufficient.

I have no axes to grind personally, it's just a major downfall of the rules IMO.

 

[Bulldog]

I'm not sure I understand where the argument is intended to lead. Diakoneo, do you think CF should employ a different test in order to assure that only "saved" persons participate in the CO forums?

Exactly. I see a cirticism of the current systam being put forth, but I don't see a better alternative being given.

 

[seebs]

I don't think there are any groups that I would call "complete opposites" that accept the Creed.

But even if there are... Who gets to decide who's in and who's out?

 

[Joykins]

The creed has the advantage of holding a much less complex and ambiguous standard than the Bible, as a test for club membership.

 

[seebs]

I'm not proposing any kind of test to determine a person's eternal destiny - because, as has been noted, it is impossible to know individually who is saved, except yourself.

Fair enough.

However it is not impossible to determine which ... organizations or groups hold to Biblical Christianity - consider that using the creed was the method chosen to do just that (hence the "based on the Bible").

Actually, no. The Creed predates what we think of as "the Bible". (Especially over here in Baptist-land, where most of you probably use a Bible with 7 fewer books in it than the one used by the people who worked out the Creed.)

Anyway, who cares about "Biblical" Christianity? This is a site for all Christians, not just some subsets.

My church has no formal doctrine at all. None. My church is not "Christian". That is because a church is not a person, thus has no soul, thus cannot participate in the plan for salvation.

The people who go to my church are, for the most part, Christians. I am not sure whether all of them adhere to the Creed, or whether all of them are saved.

Let the Bible be the judge.

I fully agree. Henceforth, here is what we will do. When a new user sends a PM to team alpha requesting an icon change to "Christian", let us have the message printed out and put on a Bible.

If the Bible utters a single sound, let's interpret it accordingly. Otherwise, we will assume that the Bible has no opinion, and take them at their word.