The Nicene Creed

[Joseph Antley]

zippythepinhead,

Try John 1, 1Tim, and 1John ... these scriptures would validate the words "true God from true God ... one in being with the Father" found in the second paragraph of the creed.

John 17:20-22 seems to imply a different kind of "oneness".

[rameumptom]

The Nicene Creed's teachings on the Trinity go against many earlier Church Fathers' writings. Origen and many others discussed the Godhead as being separate beings, not equal.

Eusebius entered Nice as a believer in Origen, but was "convinced" on pain of excommunication and exile that he'd need to sign the Creed.

Constantine held much power during the convention, as Eusebius states in his history. I have no doubt that his background in Greek culture (as with most of Rome at the time) would convince him that a God that fit the Greek ideal of the Grand Creator was more akin to what God should be like. This monotheistic idea would also be more appealing to the Jewish Christians. Yet Origen and others discussed plainly that God and Christ were separate beings, with Christ being subordinate to God.

Only in the few decades preceding the Nice Council was there an impetus to make God some nebulous cloud that is not affected by mankind and is of a different substance than us. BTW, Johnny, when God states he made man in his own image; and later states through Paul that God is the Father of our spirits, just how does that make the Trinitarian belief that we are of a different substance than God fit into scripture? Man becoming God was a common belief up until the last few centuries. Origen and other early Church leaders discussed it frequently. Even Paul stated that we are joint-heirs with Christ, and John wrote we will sit on God's thrones as "kings and priests" and reign with Him. Yet the rejection of such a teaching all started with the idea of separating God's substance from all other substance. If nothing else was made of God-stuff, then nothing else could ever become God (though it could approach his glory as closely as matter is able to do so). But this is not what the scriptures and early Church Fathers teach.

Origen was quoted and credited by Eusebius and others as one of the greatest Church Fathers ever in his teachings, doctrine, and fighting against false creeds. Yet, only a few centuries later, he was considered apostate, because the doctrines of the Christian Church had changed!

It is no wonder that Paul stated we need apostles and prophets until Christ comes again, so that such dogmas and creeds do not heave us to and fro like the waves of the ocean. And as for your insistence that the bishop of Rome was the Pope - that is highly debated by scholars today. Most outside the Roman Catholic Church believe that Gregory was the first Universal Pope. As it is, after the Nicene Council, Arianism and Origenism continued to hold sway over much of the Christian Church. Why would this be, if Sylvester was the Pope, and the Creed accepted by the Church as a whole? Athanasius was almost defrocked, because the council was so widely rejected for about 50-100 years after the Creeds were signed.

I respect the RCC, but their version of history often leaves much to be desired, because it starts with certain assumptions that history cannot defend, and they choose to just accept as fact and move on in their "defense." While Mormonism has historical issues, we are trying to face those issues - such as the BoM and DNA - head on.

[Bsix]

Johnny: Please provide the scriptures to show how it is heretical

Six: There are no sciptures in the Bible to support the Nicene Creed's heretial teaching of "one substance" of the Godhead. "One Substance" is the crux of the Trintiarian heresy...and is a complete unbiblical leap of doctrine.

http://www.aboutcatholics.com/faith_beliefs/nicene_creed/

Six: Which version of the Nicene Creed is this one? The Nicene Creed, like most of evolving Catholicism required numerous do-overs to finalize.

Johnny: It is an example of development or maturing doctrines.

Six: At least you agree that the Nicene Creed represents the "development" of doctrine. I would suggest that the notion of "one substance" is not mature doctrine...it is heretical doctrine.

Johnny: Secular government was not embroiled in the Church doctrinal affairs.

Six: I'm amazed at the chutzpah it must require to say such a thing with a straight face. The Nicene Council was not called by Bishops or Apostles...it was called by the Roman Emporer himself. It was conducted under his secular control, in his secular Imperial Palace. The doctrines decided there by a tiny minority of the Bishops were enforced by the power of the Roman Empire.

Imagine that Bill Clinton ordered an ecumenical council to be conducted in the West wing of the White House under the direction and authority of the United States government. Imagine that only a tiny few of the leaders of some Churches accepted the invitation to come. Imagine that after much debate and arguing, a small majority of the few churches in attendence voted to approve a ruling creed to dictate universal doctrines. Imagine that the United States government then imposed those new doctrines on all the churches as a whole.

Do you think for a moment that such scenario would be of God and that any unbiblical doctrines decided by such a government controlled council would be genuine revelation? No way.

Johnny: The manner in which the doctrine was decided is similiar to the council described in Acts 15 that settled a dispute.

Six: The Nicene Council is only superficially similar to the biblical council in Acts 15. The council in Acts 15 was not conviened an ruled over by a non-Christian. The council in Acts 15 was not conducted in a secular capital city in the secular imperial palace. The council in Acts 15 is orthodox because it is endorsed by being described in scripure. The decrees of Acts 15 were not enforced by a secular government. The Nicene Council simply did not have the authority or inspiration to determine orthodox doctrine.

Regards,

Six

[johnny]

Antley,

I would agree that John 17:20-22 is describing a different "oneness" than what is revealed by John 1, 1Tim, and 1John.

Plese describe the oneness described in John 1 and 1 Tim1 ...who was manifest in the flesh?

John 1

[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

[14] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

[34] And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

1Tim.1

[1] Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;

[2] Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

1Tim.3

[16] And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

[Joseph Antley]

Antley,

I would agree that John 17:20-22 is describing a different "oneness" than what is revealed by John 1, 1Tim, and 1John.

Plese describe the oneness described in John 1 and 1 Tim1 ...who was manifest in the flesh?

...

Jesus Christ is Jehovah. He was God and He is God. That does not mean He is the Father. He was made flesh when He was born into the world. Before that He was still God.

The verses you quoted support my view of the Godhead just as much as they support yours. They are too ambiguous to say for certain what they meant, in my opinion. Fortunately we have Latter-day revelation to clarify.

[johnny]

Bsix ,

John 1 and 1 Tim1 nicely support the idea of ""one substance". Who was manifest in the flesh?

What other "versions" are you referring too, how are they different?

Why is it a heretical doctrine, please back up your words with some substance.

As I said earlier, the council was called by the man Constantine and the council was recognized by the Christ's vicar as ecumenical.

The Nicene Council was not "ruled over" by a non-Christian. The Nicene Council had the authority. Just as the apostles at the primitive Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) did not doubt their authority to decide for the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, so the bishops at Nicaea possessed authority to decide for the whole Church.

[johnny]

Antley,

Does your view support the Biblical concept that Jehovah and Elohim are the same God? The name Jehovah is applied to both the Father and the Son in the New Testament. The two Persons share the common name Jehovah, the personal name of God in the Old Testament.

Fortunately Catholics have the divine revelation of the Catholic Church to clarify what scripture reveals. The Catholic Church has the authority from Christ to interpret scriputure.

[johnny]

rameumptom,

The Nicene Creed's teachings on the Trinity fit nicely with the Early Church Father's teachings. The writings of the earliest Christians clearly understood the Trinity in the sense that we do today.

Ignatius of Antioch

To the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God. (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110])

Ignatius of Antioch

For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God

[johnny]

Antley,

You say that "Jesus Christ is Jehovah. He was God and He is God" ... who is your God? ... how many Gods are there?

Christians who believe the Nicene Creed (see below) believe the following ...

http://www.aboutcatholics.com/faith_beliefs/nicene_creed/

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary and became man.

[livy111us]

Christians who believe the Nicene Creed (see below) believe the following ...

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary and became man.

Johnny,

It seems we always end up here don't we? I bet you can guess what I am going to bring up...yup, the teaching of Origin, Lactantius, and Justin Martyr which say that each member of the Godhead, is a God themselves. Origin specifically says "three Gods". So you cannot say that it was not taught by the early fathers. Let's just stick to the topic.

[johnny]

livy111us,

And I would say that latter divine revelation, like the Nicene Creed, clarified these early writers who used expressions that were inaccurate ...

[livy111us]

Johnny,

Do you believe that the Nicene Creed was revelation?

[johnny]

livy111us,

I believe that the Nicene Creed came from divine revelation. See link below for more information.

http://comparing-views.com/book/c05trinity.htm

Some central doctrines (such as the Trinity and the hypostatic union) were not always understood or as clearly expounded in the Church

[Bsix]

Johnny: John 1 and 1 Tim1 nicely support the idea of ""one substance". Who was manifest in the flesh?

Six: Those passages say absolutely nothing about one substance. It would seem that you and other Trinitarians read words that are not actually written. Nowhere in the Bible does it teach that the individuals of the Godhead are of one substance. What is really at play when you cite those passages is that trinitarians interpret beyond the words of the Bible. They prooftext the Bible to support a heresy.

It is you that claims that the Nicene Creed is simply a restatement of scripture. I challenge you to quote a single passage of the Bible that directly and explicitly teaches that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are of "one in being" as stated (one substance) in the Nicene Creed.

If you cannot, then such a statement in the Nicene Creed is a heretical addition to the doctrines taught in the Bible.

Johnny: What other "versions" are you referring too, how are they different?

The Nicene Creed, like Christian doctrine it attempts to define was subject to evolution and change. Most of the revision had taken place by the time the NC was written, but it still took several revisions before the Nicene Creed was declared final and finished. FRom Wikipedia, here is a synthasized version of the 325 version and the 381 version. Additions are underlined, deletions are bolded:

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty

Maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the Son of God, eternally begotten from the father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the father,

God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,

begotten not made, one in Being with the Father.

through whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth.

Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down from the heaven and became incarnate

by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, becoming man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;

suffered and was buried.

On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures

he ascended to the heavens and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,

And his kingdom will have no end

And in the Holy Spirit. the Lord, the Giver of Life,

Who proceeds from the Father

With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified

He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy Catholic and apostolic Church

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,

and the life of the world to come.

But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or is subject to alteration or change - those the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.

Six: As you can see, there are significant doctrinal additions. The question is why? If the Nicene Creed is inspired, why are there additonal doctrines being added? Why is it a heretical doctrine, please back up your words with some substance.

Note that in the original version teaches that Jesus was "begotten from the substance of the Father."

Johnny: As I said earlier, the council was called by the man Constantine and the council was recognized by the Christ's vicar as ecumenical.

Six: Constantine was no ordinary "man." He was the secular ruler of the Roman Empire. He called the council and presided over it ()

He directed that the council be held in his imperial palace. He was an active participant in the controversy. He contended with Arius. In fact, Eusebius of Caesarea reported that it was Constintine himself that introduced the concept of "homoosious" into the Nicene creed. I believe Constantine further meddled in the affairs of the church by having the Arians excommunicated and banished.

Johnny: The Nicene Council was not "ruled over" by a non-Christian.

Six: Your denials aside, the Council was a politically driven and secularly convoked affair that was intended by the secular Emporor to settle schismatic divisions within the Empire. Constantine was not a Christian. While he may have believed in Christianity to some degree, he was not baptised at the time of the Council.

The Nicene Council had the authority. Just as the apostles at the primitive Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) did not doubt their authority to decide for the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, so the bishops at Nicaea possessed authority to decide for the whole Church.

Six: Your statement is a matter of subjective opinion. The Church had already been corrupted. The fact that a secular, non-Christian political leader convoked the Council, influenced the outcome, and saw to it that dissentors were relgiously and politically punished, and that the council embraced the heresy of homoosiuos renders the council non-authoratative and invalid.

Regards,

Six

[Joseph Antley]

Antley,

You say that "Jesus Christ is Jehovah. He was God and He is God" ... who is your God? ... how many Gods are there?

Christians who believe the Nicene Creed (see below) believe the following ...

http://www.aboutcatholics.com/faith_beliefs/nicene_creed/

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary and became man.

Please don't start the "you believe in a different God" routine. Elohim is the Hebrew word for "God" and can refer to either the Father or the Son, or even other things. I believe the Creed up until the point of "one in being with the Father", because that is not supported by scripture.

Jesus himself explained what is meant when the Scriptures speak of Him and the Father being one. Once again, see John 17:20-22.

Origen said, "They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son" (Origen, Book II, Chapter 2, emphasis added).

[Cold Steel]

As I said in the Apostolic Succession thread (see link below), the Nicene Creed is not evidence of apostasy because it is completely consist with what scripture reveals.

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showto...ndpost&p=374035

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets. We believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The creed is a simple statement of belief, leaving out the nature of the atonement, the preaching to the spirits in prison and the nature and condition of man. The problem with creeds written my men is that they continue on with the force of scripture with some very unscriptural views. Such is the Athanasian Creed:

"We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is all one; the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet there are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated; but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty; and yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God."

Thus when creeds gain as much weight as scripture, it tends to lead men astray. And to deny the political weight of creeds is wishful thinking.

Cold Steel

[SteubieU]

These discussion tend to move a little too quickly for my taste, but I would just like to point out to those who think that Constantine ruled the Church... Constantine, and his sons who stuck with Christianity at all, were Arians... so it hard to see how they were controlling the Church when they didn't really believe in the teachings of the Nicene Council.

Constantine was baptized by an Arian bishop as he lay dying.

[johnny]

Bsix,

I challenge you to quote a single passage of the Bible that directly and explicity teaches that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are three Gods like Joseph Smith taught. If you cannot, then the words of Joseph Smith are a heretical addtion to the doctrine in the Bible.

The Webster dictionary defines "substance" as essential nature. Those passages (see below) reveal that God is Man and Man is God in the Person of Jesus Christ. The Divine nature was united with the human nature of Jesus. A union of two substances or natures so as to make One Person Who was at the same time God and Man, that is, had at the same time Divine and human nature ... in the words of the Nicene Creed "the Son is one in being with the Father". God descended to human nature, the Word (Logos) became flesh.

1Tim.3

[16] And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

John 1

[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

[14] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

As you have stated their is a final version of the Nicene Creed. In the council at Jerusalem (Acts 15) their are was "much disputing" then Peter rose up with the final version. The Early Church Fathers also taught that the following about "substance":

- The Logos is God, being the substance of God (Hippolytus 220AD)

- No division of substance, but merely an extension. Christ is Spirit of Spirit ... the two are one (Tertullian 197AD)

- For both are one--that is, God (Clement of Alexandria 202AD)

- there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word (Ignatius, Magnesians 8 (105-115AD))

- The Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son (Athenagoras 177 AD)

Constantine took no part in the deliberations of the Council; it was entirely an affair of the Church

[Joseph Antley]

These discussion tend to move a little too quickly for my taste, but I would just like to point out to those who think that Constantine ruled the Church... Constantine, and his sons who stuck with Christianity at all, were Arians... so it hard to see how they were controlling the Church when they didn't really believe in the teachings of the Nicene Council.

Constantine was baptized by an Arian bishop as he lay dying.

While it's true Constantine was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia, there is no evidence that he believed in Arianism. If he ever believed in Christianity at all, evidence points him toward Nicenic views. Constantine exiled all those who would not accept the Creed, including Eusebius, and had all Arian texts burned. He later allowed some of the exiled to return, and Eusebius because he was a prot

[johnny]

Antley,

In John 17 do you believe that the Father was in Jesus?

In John 14 do you believe that the Father can dwell in men?

John 17

[21] That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

[22] And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

[23] I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

John 14

[10] Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

[17] Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

[23] Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Ignatius, clement, and Athenagoras said the following:

- The Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son (Athenagoras 177 AD)

- For both are one--that is, God (Clement of Alexandria 202AD)

- there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word (Ignatius, Magnesians 8 (105-115AD))

[Joseph Antley]

Antley,

In John 17 do you believe that the Father was in Jesus?

In John 14 do you believe that the Father can dwell in men?

John 17

[21] That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

[22] And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

[23] I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

John 14

[10] Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

[17] Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

[23] Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Ignatius, clement, and Athenagoras said the following:

- The Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son (Athenagoras 177 AD)

- For both are one--that is, God (Clement of Alexandria 202AD)

- there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word (Ignatius, Magnesians 8 (105-115AD))

They were "one" in the same sense that the members of the Church were to be "one". If you take his meaning to be "one in substance with the Father", then Jesus was telling us to somehow merge with one another and become a single being, and to also merge with the Son and the Father and become a single Being with them.

If Ignatius, Clement, and Athenagoras meant what they said in the Nicenic way, then I respectfully disagree with them.

[johnny]

Cold Steel,

From the beginning, the apostolic Church expressed and handed on her faith in brief formulae normative for all [Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 15:3-5]. The Athanasian Creed is consistent with what scripture reveals.

[Joseph Antley]

Cold Steel,

From the beginning, the apostolic Church expressed and handed on her faith in brief formulae normative for all [Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 15:3-5]. The Athanasian Creed is consistent with what scripture reveals.

Sure, if you put words that aren't there into the scriptures.

[johnny]

Antley,

Could you further explain what you mean by "Jesus was telling us to somehow merge with one another and become a single being, and to also merge with the Son and the Father and become a single Being with them".

It sounds like what you are saying is that the Father and the Son can dwell in a person which goes against LDS scriputre (D&C 130:3,22,23)/

[Joseph Antley]

Antley,

Could you further explain what you mean by "Jesus was telling us to somehow merge with one another and become a single being, and to also merge with the Son and the Father and become a single Being with them".

It sounds like what you are saying is that the Father and the Son can dwell in a person which goes against LDS scriputre (D&C 130:3,22,23)/

I said, "If you take his meaning to be "one in substance with the Father", then Jesus was telling us to somehow merge with one another and become a single being, and to also merge with the Son and the Father and become a single Being with them."

If you look at the context of John 17, Jesus said that we should be one as He and the Father are one. If you believe They are one in substance, then we must all become one in substance as well.