View Full Version : Nicene Creed: Whotsat?
seebs
5th September 2005, 08:17 PM
Baptist churches have historically tought "soul freedom", and many Baptist or Anabaptist churches don't have much, or in some cases any, formalized doctrine. Many of our churches reject creeds in principle, although we may be familiar with some creeds.
With that in mind, I ask you all to consider the Nicene Creed, the topic of today's poll. If you are unfamiliar with it, that's fine, just vote accordingly.
The Nicene Creed (http://www.mit.edu/~tb/anglican/intro/lr-nicene-creed.html), in case you need to look it up. :)
mesue
5th September 2005, 08:32 PM
I used to chant the Nicene Creed at my former church every Sunday, unless I attended mass on Saturday.
newbeliever02072005
5th September 2005, 08:44 PM
This was the part that I didn't get....
"We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church."
Isn't the Nicene Creed for baptists only?
mesue
5th September 2005, 09:00 PM
This was the part that I didn't get....
"We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church."
Isn't the Nicene Creed for baptists only?
I was always under the impression that the Nicene Creed was written at the Counsel of Nice. A Roman Catholic forum, of sorts, to refute Protestantism.
To a Roman Catholic the word "Catholic" means "Worldwide" to conote that we are one big happy family in God. Maybe in a One World Order sort of way, I guess.
Philip
5th September 2005, 10:18 PM
I was always under the impression that the Nicene Creed was written at the Counsel of Nice.
The first two sections were written at the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325. The third section was written in at the First Council of Constantinople in AD 381.
A Roman Catholic forum, of sorts, to refute Protestantism.
The authors of the Symbol would not have understood either of these terms.
Joykins
5th September 2005, 10:20 PM
I was always under the impression that the Nicene Creed was written at the Counsel of Nice. A Roman Catholic forum, of sorts, to refute Protestantism.
To a Roman Catholic the word "Catholic" means "Worldwide" to conote that we are one big happy family in God. Maybe in a One World Order sort of way, I guess.
I know a lot about it, but what I know I learned in school, not church. The first time I actually heard it recited was when I went to Catholic mass with some friends in college.
The Council of Nicea was held in the 300s, way before Protestantism. It was held to hammer out what the Church believed was the correct way to understand the Trinity--it had been a matter of public debate for a while and Constantine wanted some sort of closure (which didn't actually come for some 60 or so years after the council). "Catholic" means "universal" but at that point there was really only one church. The Arian heresy (which Nicea condemned) was a belief system *within* the church before then.
Philip
5th September 2005, 10:21 PM
I haven't voted, but I agree with the Creed in its original form (http://oca.org/OCSelect-Prayer.asp?SID=2&name=The%20Symbol%20of%20Faith), sans filioque. I would also object to a couple of the translations in version Seebs cited.
arunma
5th September 2005, 10:40 PM
I, who am a beginner at Christianity, do not claim to fully understand the creed that the wise men at Nicea developed, but I believe everything contained in the Creed (as I understand it thus far). I am not legalistic, so I certainly don't mind if churches use their own creeds. Heck, my church doesn't actually use the Nicene Creed in our services. But I do think that the Creed excellently summarizes the important doctrines of Christianity. And I could recite it in good conscience.
This was the part that I didn't get....
"We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church."
Isn't the Nicene Creed for baptists only?
Actually, the liturgical churches use it. I've never heard of a Baptist church reciting the Creed. ANyway, the word catholic can alternatively be translated as "complete" or "universal." It means that Christ has only one church. This is true, so long as we understand that the catholic church is an invisible body of believers, of which we are all members.
This word has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, the Romans use this term in naming their church to suggest that the RCC is the only true church. Personally, I believe in the catholic church, but I do not adhere to the Roman Catholic Church (note the uppercase C).
Philip
5th September 2005, 10:52 PM
Actually, the liturgical churches use it. I've never heard of a Baptist church reciting the Creed. ANyway, the word catholic can alternatively be translated as "complete" or "universal." It means that Christ has only one church. This is true, so long as we understand that the catholic church is an invisible body of believers, of which we are all members.[Emphasis mine]
It is interesting to ask yourself if this is what the authors of the Symbol had in mind.
Joykins
5th September 2005, 11:47 PM
The Apostle's Creed (which my C&MA church reads in unison probably about semiannually--we can't recite it because no one has it memorized) has a translation that uses the word "universal" instead of "catholic" because apparently some people got confused about the meaning. I don't think the bishops at Nicea envisioned a split Christendom.
seebs
5th September 2005, 11:51 PM
The Apostles' Creed is not the same as the Nicene Creed in many other ways. JWs and Mormons can assent to it, for instance.
Oxygen
6th September 2005, 12:05 AM
I voted "Have Read It, Understood It, And Agreed With All Of It." The Nicean Creed is an excellent work of Christianity that expresses the most basic principles of the Christian Faith. I mean, think about it. Though we all may differ in praxis and some areas of theology, We can all affirm that majority of points in the Creed.
arunma
6th September 2005, 01:00 AM
It is interesting to ask yourself if this is what the authors of the Symbol had in mind.
As Joykins said, the authors didn't imagine a split Christendom. Since churches still existed at a local level, yes I do think that the authors wished to refer to an invisible body of believers. And as an Orthodox Christian, you'll agree with me that the church wasn't unified under a single bishop (be it a bishop of Rome or any other).
Oxygen
6th September 2005, 08:19 AM
Arunma, You have to understand Orthodox ecclesiology to understand why Philip made his statement. Orthodoxy rejects the concept of the "visible" and "invisible" church. According to Orthodoxy, the church is the visible and organic Body of Christ on earth.
If you are interested in a full explanation, I recommend this article by Patrick Barnes: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/church.pdf .
DISCLAIMER: I am posting this article for the sake of clarifying Philip's point. I do not endorse this article. I believe that the Church is invisible and made up of all true believers.
mesue
6th September 2005, 05:19 PM
I know a lot about it, but what I know I learned in school, not church. The first time I actually heard it recited was when I went to Catholic mass with some friends in college.
The Council of Nicea was held in the 300s, way before Protestantism. It was held to hammer out what the Church believed was the correct way to understand the Trinity--it had been a matter of public debate for a while and Constantine wanted some sort of closure (which didn't actually come for some 60 or so years after the council). "Catholic" means "universal" but at that point there was really only one church. The Arian heresy (which Nicea condemned) was a belief system *within* the church before then.
:doh: I was thinking Counsel of Trent :doh:
Any way, I was Roman Catholic and we chanted the Nicene Creed "Profession of Faith" as the missalette stated, at mass every Sunday.
JPPT1974
6th September 2005, 05:45 PM
As Joykins said, the authors didn't imagine a split Christendom. Since churches still existed at a local level, yes I do think that the authors wished to refer to an invisible body of believers. And as an Orthodox Christian, you'll agree with me that the church wasn't unified under a single bishop (be it a bishop of Rome or any other).
Some churches still exist at a local level and authors do intend to think differently. Roman Cahtolics aren't unified at all under a single bishop as well. As they do have differences of opinions.
Crazy Liz
6th September 2005, 05:48 PM
Actually, the liturgical churches use it. I've never heard of a Baptist church reciting the Creed.
The Mennonite Hymnal we used when I was a kid even omitted the second verse of O Come, All Ye Faithful (http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/o/c/ocomeayf.htm), the verse taken directly from the Nicene Creed. I had never heard it until I was well into adulthood.
MrJim
6th September 2005, 08:14 PM
Orthodoxy rejects the concept of the "visible" and "invisible" church. According to Orthodoxy, the church is the visible and organic Body of Christ on earth.
It is not only an Orthodox belief. I was taught by a crusty Old River Brethren teacher that the true church is visible-that the notion of an "invisible" church is false. A visible church is an old anabaptist teaching (though compared to the Orthodox Church still the "new-kid-on-the-block":P )
Monica02
6th September 2005, 09:45 PM
The Mennonite Hymnal we used when I was a kid even omitted the second verse of O Come, All Ye Faithful (http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/o/c/ocomeayf.htm), the verse taken directly from the Nicene Creed. I had never heard it until I was well into adulthood.
I did a search of "O Come All Ye Faithful" - I did not realize that there were several versions.
Joykins
6th September 2005, 10:00 PM
As Joykins said, the authors didn't imagine a split Christendom. Since churches still existed at a local level, yes I do think that the authors wished to refer to an invisible body of believers.
Perhaps I wasn't thinking or typing clearly...I don't think it crossed the minds of the bishops at Nicea that the future would hold a Christendom where the "invisible body of believers" and the Church were not the same thing. Part of the purpose of the Council was to define basic orthodoxy and enforce unity of belief. I think they fully intended whichever side they defined as heretics not to be part of the Church (both meanings).
And as an Orthodox Christian, you'll agree with me that the church wasn't unified under a single bishop (be it a bishop of Rome or any other).
Having one person as a leader is not the only way to run an organization.
Diane_Windsor
6th September 2005, 10:25 PM
The authors of the Symbol would not have understood either of these terms.
It is interesting to ask yourself if this is what the authors of the Symbol had in mind.
:scratch: The Symbol????
diane
:confused:
Philip
6th September 2005, 11:15 PM
I think they fully intended whichever side they defined as heretics not to be part of the Church (both meanings).
The hope was that the heretics would repent and come to the True Faith. At Niceae, this was largely accomplished. Remember, as Joykins pointed out earlier, the majority of the bishops who attended the Council were in agreement with Arius at the beginning. Thanks be to God that He raised up St Athanasius, a 'mere' deacon at the time, to defend the True Faith. By the end of the Council, only three bishops (IIRC) supported Arius.
:scratch: The Symbol????
Sorry. We normally call the Nicene Creed the Symbol of Faith. 'Symbol' is perhaps a poor word to use in English since it only partially captures the Greek meaning.
BTW, the full name of the Nicene Creed is the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. I just like typing Constantinopolitan.
seebs
7th September 2005, 05:33 AM
That's my favorite kind of ice cream! <-- can miss any point.
Philip
7th September 2005, 11:21 AM
Mmmmm...ice cream
Copyright ©2000-2008, ChristianForums.com