Christian Forums and Message Board

97% of the people in the Church of Christ don't even know what the Nicene Creed is.

Most Protestants, don't even know what a Protestant really is anymore, let alone anything about far more ancient history.  If they don't even know why they are what they are, why would they care what is in the Nicene Creed?

Quote from: Snargles on Fri May 21, 2010 - 13:43:48

97% of the people in the Church of Christ don't even know what the Nicene Creed is.

Why should that matter, outside of some historical significance?  There is a lot of church history that most Christians, incluceing Catholics, EO, protetants, etc., don't know about.  That really represents no threat to their salvation and their worship of God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

That was my point. We don't know and don't need to know but we will get to heaven anyway. It doesn't matter if the filioque is in the Nicean Creed or not becasue the Creed doesn't count for anything.

Quote

What is that supposed to mean?  Why do they have to know anything about anything other that what the Bible says?  Are most protestants a little weak on their theology?  Probably, but no more so than most Catholics.  What the actual history is is rather immaterial except from an historical point of view.  Not being terribly interested in history as such, I really couldn't care less about the Nicene Creed.

The RM, of which I claim association, had its beginnings primarily for the purpose of casting aside all such man made creeds and returning to theScriptures themselves as the only authority.

It simply means, that if they don't even care why they are called by the name they are called, why would they care about a creed much older than the same?  Apparently history, even about themselves, is not an important topic among them.  Sometimes history reveals truths, that are no longer welcome.  

We are called Christians.  I and every other Christian, other than a mentally challenged one, knows why they are called by that name.  Don't misinterpret me.  I have nothing against history.  It can be enlightening.  But it doesn't change the truth of the Scriptures.  If you are referring to the designation, protestant, then I, not being much of an historian,couldn't be certain, but suspect that moniker was affixed by the RCC and not in a loving way.  But it really doesn't matter one way or the other.

If the Protestant churches want to return to the early church, why would they include this Roman addition well after the original Nicene Creed?

I admit I am being provocative, but I am curious.

The Protestants include the filioque, because it is theologically sound The "Orthodox" have too many Arianism tendencies to realise that. If Jesus is fully 100% God (true God from true God, Light from Light), then he can do 100% of what the Father can do. Light emanates Light. Jesus is Light and can emanate (although He is not the original source) Light...simple isn't it?

I have been in the CoC all my life and have never heard the Nicene Creed mentioned. I wasn't even aware of it until I went to college. How important is the creed to Prot. denoms? Do they teach it to little kids in Sunday School and then forget it? Is it recited out loud during Sunday morning worship? Is it only important to High Church types? Is it only important to academics or is it talked about in the church on the corner? Someone put the creed's place in 21st century Protestant man-in-the-pew theology in perspective for me.

Jimmy,

Quote from: Jimmy on Sat May 22, 2010 - 12:12:47

The RM, of which I claim association, had its beginnings primarily for the purpose of casting aside all such man made creeds and returning to theScriptures themselves as the only authority.

This is how I understand the RM too.  I guess we see it quite differently, because we see God working through history, not just during NT times.  Firstly, we don't think the creed was "man-made" but was guided by the Holy Spirit, just as the NT was guided by the Holy Spirit.  It was used to separate the true Christians with the cults of its time.  It has been used since as the standard summary of true Christianity.   Even this website uses it to define a Christian. 

Your quote about "returning to the Scriptures" themselves as the only authority has several problems.  Firstly, the historical church did not do this--there was no compiled Scriptures to refer to.  Secondly, Jesus promises to guide his church, not just a book to do it.  Don't get me wrong--we believe in reading Scripture and always have (John Chrystostom encouraged scripture reading, unlike our friends in Rome who have both opposed and supported Scripture reading in history)--  but . . . authority does not lie in books but in people.  The danger in this is each person can interpret the Good Book as he wants resulting in no one having authority, and therefore, unity is not possible.

First, the creed is definitely man made.  I see no other means that it came into being.  You say it was "guided" by the Holy Spirit, but I don't think you can substantiate that.  Second, you must think there is something besides the Bible that we now need in order to have the knowledge of God that He would have us know.  I don't think so.  As far as authority residing in people, there is not a single person that I have known or have ever met in whom I would trust my salvation.  I am sure you and those with whom you associated with are very fine folk, but I will just place my trust in the "book"  not in you or anyone else.

As far as the early church not having the compiled Scriptures, I think that is overdone.  Nothing new was added in the establishment of the canon.  It only limited which of the documents were considered canon.

As far as unity is concerned.  A "forced" unity as you would require is not of inerest to me.  I find that "unity" too much like the unity of the Scribes and Pharisees that Jesus railed against.

Quote

As far as unity is concerned.  A "forced" unity as you would require is not of inerest to me.  I find that "unity" too much like the unity of the Scribes and Pharisees that Jesus railed against.

You misunderstand me. I am not for a forced unity.  But unity is important to God.  In John 17:20, Jesus prays that "they all may be one." The creed helps us to do this by, frankly, leaving out those who are not really Christians. 

With all due respect, this is precisely why I would reject any such adherence to a man-made creed.

Quote from: trifecta on Sun May 23, 2010 - 17:58:30

Quote

As far as unity is concerned.  A "forced" unity as you would require is not of inerest to me.  I find that "unity" too much like the unity of the Scribes and Pharisees that Jesus railed against.

You misunderstand me. I am not for a forced unity.  But unity is important to God.  In John 17:20, Jesus prays that "they all may be one." The creed helps us to do this by, frankly, leaving out those who are not really Christians.

With all due respect, this is precisely why I would reject any such adherence to a man-made creed.

Jimmy,

I think I understand you.  However, as in all things, we have to draw the line somewhere.
For example, what of those people who say they are Christians but deny the Resurrection.

Can we commune with them?   

Ultimately, it is God who judges; we don't do that. The church, the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15) has to define was is and (more often) is not truth.

Once again, Snargles, you ask good thought-provoking questions.

Trifecta --

Since you think the Creed was written by inspired men after the close of the Bible as we know it today, do you think there are inspired writers today?

Yes, people are inspired today, but nothing new can really be said because the faith was given "once for all." (Jude 3).    Writings today must agree with the early church.

Let me add, too, that the principles of the Nicene Creed, we believe were believed by the earliest Christians.  It's not really a new idea.  It just helped to clarify what the church always believed.
 

How would we recognize them?

We have a test:  It has to have antiquity (be historical-meaning what the early church believed), universality (believed by the whole church) and consent (agreed to by all).  

While today "innovation" has a positive conotation; in the old times, to have innovation in theology was to be avoided.  

If the original writers of the Creed were inspired how do you know the writers of the filioque weren't likewise inspired?

Simple. It fails the antiquity test.  The historic church did not believe it.   Remember the term "proceeds from" comes directly from John 15:26:
"But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.

Furthermore, the whole church didn't believe it--only Rome did/does.  (fails universality and consent test).

Then, there is the fact that it was not added for theological reasons but for political reasons.  Finally, RCC tacitly admits it is not important today (although it was a big deal in the 11th century) by allowing in the eastern expressions of the Roman Catholic faiths--so it is not universal even among Catholics.   

Recitation of the creed sounds to me like a "vain repetition"

There is nothing wrong with repetition.  It helps us to remember.  Someone in the Protestant movement took these two words and took it way too far.  Firstly, a more accurate translation of the Greek is "empty words."   But if even if you maintain the English translation, the problem isn't with "repetition" but vain repetition. The fact is  that early worship was liturgical, so there was repetition.   

Then there is . . .

 like the reciting of the Lords Prayer, another vain repitition.

Careful there, the Lord's Prayer is NOT a vain repetition.

If Jesus was so against repetition, why did he give us the Lord's Prayer and told us to use it?   I humbly suggest to Protestants to give more credence to Jesus' words than some theological conjecture.

We maintain unity of thought through Sunday AM and Wednesday PM Bible study, week-long gospel meetings and pot luck lunches.

If that works for you great, but as often happens, a new leader or even a layman can change things over time.    We've maintained our church for 2,000 years by following the traditions passed down from generation to generation.   The creeds protect us against heresy.    Let me add that the Orthodox Church has been the most consistent in its beliefs.  For example, no one believes in strange theories of the resurrection that have polluted many Protestant churches lately.   Many of our clerymen came from Protestant churches who no longer maintain the historic faith.

You mentioned the use of the creed in the Orthodox, RCC and Anglican churches. Do you know how it is used in Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist and low-church evangelical churches?

The Presbyterian churches maintain the Nicene Creed (I think), but it is not read in most services. Methodists do as well.  The Baptist movement is against all creeds, but remember the Baptist church is the newest of those listed.  It's roots rebelled the most against Rome.  In my opinion, this was reactionary move, not made with sound judgment.

History is important because it guards against any Tom, Dick, or Harry who thinks he knows how the early church thought.   

Thanks again for the questions. Hope this helps.

The answer to your question is simple - heredity.  Most protestant churches are descended from Catholic roots, not Orthodox roots.

If you care, I'm opposed to the filioque, and I'm Protestant.

The answer to your question is simple - heredity.  Most protestant churches are descended from Catholic roots, not Orthodox roots.

If you care, I'm opposed to the filioque, and I'm Protestant.

If this post hadn't been here, Ida said the same thing. Protestants are Western Christians and take their lead from the Western Church - at least those that have some admitted connection to the Western Church.