The Nicene Creed

[chickwithsticks]

looking into these verses in OP I find this thread is straight out of the First Council of Constantinople (381AD)
Pure Roman Catholic propaganda below is at the end of the first Council of Constantinople there's no alternative meaning to Catholic used here it's Roman Catholic..


In one holy catholic and apostolic Church;

Hey ET...I agree with concerns over "...one Catholic church" but having been raised in the Lutheran Church it was my understanding ...

The original Greek language of the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds describes the Church as “catholic” (small c), which means “universal.” It declares that there is only one Christian Church on earth. As early as the 1400’s, however, “Christian Church” was commonly used and understood to mean the same as “catholic.”
After the Reformation, the Church of Rome more intentionally used “Catholic” (capital C) to distinguish itself as the true Church over against Protestants. Over time, that usage began to function as a denominational title. It then made even more sense for Lutherans to use “Christian,” since we are part of the catholic Church, but clearly not the Catholic Church

I had always believed the original word Catholic meant universal and in Lutheran churches I attended they recite with the word "...one christian church"

 

[BeyondET]

Hey ET...I agree with concerns over "...one Catholic church" but having been raised in the Lutheran Church it was my understanding ...

The original Greek language of the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds describes the Church as “catholic” (small c), which means “universal.” It declares that there is only one Christian Church on earth. As early as the 1400’s, however, “Christian Church” was commonly used and understood to mean the same as “catholic.”
After the Reformation, the Church of Rome more intentionally used “Catholic” (capital C) to distinguish itself as the true Church over against Protestants. Over time, that usage began to function as a denominational title. It then made even more sense for Lutherans to use “Christian,” since we are part of the catholic Church, but clearly not the Catholic Church

I had always believed the original word Catholic meant universal and in Lutheran churches I attended they recite with the word "...one christian church"

It may well be, but when they "I mean the Christian Romans" wrote the creed first in 325AD then later in 381AD. I don't believe they meant it that golly of a way.. They were pushing the Catholic agenda.

 

[phil36]

I agree with most of it except this part mentioned,, it's not my cup of tea,,,

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.

Hi BeyondET,

The parts you refer to, I believe is down to your misunderstanding of what the text means. If we were to make it a 'dynamic equivalent' reading it would render something like this:

We believe in one true Christian church and the teachings that come from God passed down through the apostles.. (no Christian in their right mind would disagree with this).

It has nothing to do with the system of Roman Catholicism. Although they now use it to refer to their system. The mistake many make is reading later ecclesiastical history into Nicene.

 

[hornetguy]

Jesus' followers would have been baptizing with John's baptism because they were Jewish and being water baptized by John's repentance was to show that they did have sins which the religious people of his day rejected because they "had the law of Moses". Ok.... that makes sense... I still don't know why John's folks would be mad, though, if the apostles were baptizing in John's baptism...could be simple jealousy, but scripture seems to indicate that Jesus' followers were "pulling people away" from John's teaching, and that's what made them mad...

( you will notice that they only baptized at the very start of Jesus ministry when John was doing it too and there is no record of water baptism after John was beheaded )
True, but there was only the one mention of it at all, so a lack of mentioning it doesn't necessarily indicate it stopped..IMO, of course.

If you notice that Paul in Acts 19 talking to the Ephesians asked them what baptism were they done by? They said John's - then they got water baptized in Jesus name. They were taught John's water baptism and not Christ's. These speak of 2 different water baptisms for different purposes. True... good point.

The 120 would have had been water baptized "after" Christ's death and resurrection or else they too were not saved. Which of course is foolishness. Well, there certainly was enough time after Jesus' resurrection for that to have happened..there is simply no record of it, if it happened.

The fact remains though - that if people say that "we are not saved" unless we get water baptized first - then all people who have died before getting water baptized would not be saved. This is severely erroneous and violates the very core of the gospel.
Well, as you know, I do not claim that water baptism is what "saves" us. I do believe it is necessary, because we were taught to do it. No wiggle room there. For those that haven't been a part of our discussions on this, I believe baptism is our (Christians') "circumcision". It is our outward sign of our acceptance of the free gift of salvation. It is our sign of acceptance of the new covenant that Jesus made with us.
But it is necessary that we DO it.

I put my answers to your statements in orange...

 

[Grace777x70]

I put my answers to your statements in orange...

I agree brother to most of what you say except for the fact that water baptism is our circumcision. We are circumcised with the circumcision of Christ when we believe in Christ and the Holy Spirit seals us. Col. 2:11-13

That would mean if people for whatever reason don't get water baptized before they die - then they are not a part of Christ which is of course complete foolishness.

I too agree that every believer should be water baptized. It is a great blessing and a commandment that brings life to us when we understand it's real purpose. To say that "if we don't get water baptized" then we are not saved is a violation of the gospel message. ( I know you don't say this - this statement is for others )


The process is evident. We hear the message of Christ - the good news of our salvation - we believe - then we are sealed with the Holy Spirit. This is the true baptism into the body of Christ of which the water one is a "picture" of what happened on the cross and resurrection in which we too died on the cross with Christ and were raised to be a new creation in Him.

Ephesians 1:13 (NASB)
[SUP]13 [/SUP] In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,


Every believer should get water baptized and they should be taught exactly what it represents too. You died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. Col. 3:3

 

[BeyondET]

Hi BeyondET,

The parts you refer to, I believe is down to your misunderstanding of what the text means. If we were to make it a 'dynamic equivalent' reading it would render something like this:

We believe in one true Christian church and the teachings that come from God passed down through the apostles.. (no Christian in their right mind would disagree with this).

It has nothing to do with the system of Roman Catholicism. Although they now use it to refer to their system. The mistake many make is reading later ecclesiastical history into Nicene.

Well using your modern translation system yes, but That other meaning of Catholic is a modern term, in 350AD the English language was fairly new language there wasn't as many meanings to a word as today.. Looking at the first council of Nicene in 325AD it deplicts what the people meant when using that word.

a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]

 

[jb]

I believe in the Triune God but they jumped the gun by assuming because the Holy Spirit is God, we are to worship Him with the Father & the Son when there is no teaching to the N.T. churches to do that...

Not So!

In Acts 28v25, the Holy Spirit is the Yahweh who is worshipped in Isaiah 6v3-9!

By your refusal to worship God the Holy Spirit, along with God the Father and God the Son, you have removed God the Holy Spirit from the Trinity and basically saying He is NOT co-equal with God the Father and God the Son!

To reject the Nicene Creed is to reject the teaching on the Trinity!

 

[BeyondET]

Not So!

In Acts 28v25, the Holy Spirit is the Yahweh who is worshipped in Isaiah 6v3-9!

By your refusal to worship God the Holy Spirit, along with God the Father and God the Son, you have removed God the Holy Spirit from the Trinity and basically saying He is NOT co-equal with God the Father and God the Son!

To reject the Nicene Creed is to reject the teaching on the Trinity!

the Nicene creed it was made up by Catholics,, a modern translation of the word Catholic is what people use to cover up the old Catholic Church views IMO

 

[phil36]

Well using your modern translation system yes, but That other meaning of Catholic is a modern term, in 350AD the English language was fairly new language there wasn't as many meanings to a word as today.. Looking at the first council of Nicene in 325AD it deplicts what the people meant when using that word.

a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]

Hi BeondET,

There was no English language at that time. The English language started around 500's with the arrival of Germanic tribes. The Nicene creed was originally written in Greek. As I say, you have History wrong, and the use of Language. The Holy catholic church means, the whole universal church. Roman Catholic church means the Roman universal Church.

The word catholic (with lowercase c; derived via Late Latin catholicus, from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning "universal") comes from the Greek phrase καθόλου (katholou), meaning "on the whole", "according to the whole" or "in general", and is a combination of the Greek words κατά meaning "about" and ὅλος meaning "whole". The term Catholic (usually written with uppercase C in English) was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early 2nd century to emphasize its universal scope. In the context of Christian ecclesiology, it has a rich history and several usages.
The word in English can mean either "of the Roman Catholic faith" or "relating to the historic doctrine and practice of the Western Church". Many Christians use it to refer more broadly to the whole Christian Church or to all believers in Jesus Christ regardless of denominational affiliation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_(term)

As I say you are reading later ecclesiastical history into the Nicene Creed and how you use the history of language has also failed to prove your point and is an untenable position.

 

[jb]

the Nicene creed it was made up by Catholics,, a modern translation of the word Catholic is what people use to cover up the old Catholic Church views IMO

Bigot!

(IMO)

 

[BeyondET]

Hi BeondET,

There was no English language at that time. The English language started around 500's with the arrival of Germanic tribes. The Nicene creed was originally written in Greek. As I say, you have History wrong, and the use of Language. The Holy catholic church means, the whole universal church. Roman Catholic church means the Roman universal Church.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_(term)

As I say you are reading later ecclesiastical history into the Nicene Creed and how you use the history of language has also failed to prove your point and is an untenable position.

Your right on the Greek thing, but I disagree about the nicotine Creed thing,, clearly the writers of the creed were not thinking God,Jesus,Holy Ghost, when they printed this statement in 325AD the first council

was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

For no church can condemn anybody only God can..

And farther more back in the 500's only the church could have a bible, how rude can a organized church get.. To not let the people have one two.. No doubt in my mind what they were doing, called power over the people, not in powering the people of the word..

I don't trust those bishops, priest, etc. of the old church.

 

[BeyondET]

Bigot!

(IMO)

So it shall be, for now on I'm a Bigot to you...

 

[Magenta]

I believe baptism is our (Christians') "circumcision". It is our outward sign of our acceptance of the free gift of salvation. It is our sign of acceptance of the new covenant that Jesus made with us.
But it is necessary that we DO it.

The circumcision we undergo is not done by human hands, but by Jesus Christ, who baptises us with the fire of the Holy Spirit of God, as attested to in the gospels.

John the baptist said, "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire”(Matthew 3:11b).
*
In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ,

having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.​

​

​

 

[phil36]

Your right on the Greek thing, but I disagree about the nicotine Creed thing,, clearly the writers of the creed were not thinking God,Jesus,Holy Ghost, when they printed this statement in 325AD the first council

was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

For no church can condemn anybody only God can..

And farther more back in the 500's only the church could have a bible, how rude can a organized church get.. To not let the people have one two.. No doubt in my mind what they were doing, called power over the people, not in powering the people of the word..

I don't trust those bishops, priest, etc. of the old church.

All I can say is that don't let later historical events colour your view of these early writers.

It is helpful when you quote something to give the context. You miss the first part, heres the whole section:

But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

The Nicene creed was written to refute errors and heresies about the Godhead. Heresies are usually condemned. The 325 creed was written against the Arian heresy - As time went on and more arguments and errors crept in another council was held, so the existent Nicene was updated to include refutations against what some call the macedonian heresy, which says that the Holy Spirit was God - They denied the divinity of the HS.

So put together we have the Nicene creed we now use, which guards against the heresies of Arianism, Docetism and the macedoinian heresy. It is deduced from scripture itself. All else should rightly be condemned as heresy.

 

[phil36]

All I can say is that don't let later historical events colour your view of these early writers.

It is helpful when you quote something to give the context. You miss the first part, heres the whole section:



The Nicene creed was written to refute errors and heresies about the Godhead. Heresies are usually condemned. The 325 creed was written against the Arian heresy - As time went on and more arguments and errors crept in another council was held, so the existent Nicene was updated to include refutations against what some call the macedonian heresy, which says that the Holy Spirit was NOT God - They denied the divinity of the HS.

So put together we have the Nicene creed we now use, which guards against the heresies of Arianism, Docetism and the macedoinian heresy. It is deduced from scripture itself. All else should rightly be condemned as heresy.

I missed an important word above [NOT]

 

[BeyondET]

All I can say is that don't let later historical events colour your view of these early writers.

It is helfu when you quote something to give the context. You miss the first part, heres the whole section:



The Nicene creed was written to refute errors and heresies about the Godhead. Heresies are usually condemned. The 325 creed was written against the Arian heresy - As time went on and more arguments and errors crept in another council was held, so the existent Nicene was updated to include refutations against what some call the macedonian heresy, which says that the Holy Spirit was God - They denied the divinity of the HS.

So put together we have the Nicene creed we now use, which guards against the heresies of Arianism, Docetism and the macedoinian heresy. It is deduced from scripture itself. All else should rightly be condemned as heresy.

Well the historical events of those times does help me to understand their mind set and what they were doing. I don't just go with the flow like today. I view everything I take it all in and see what is right and what is wrong.

It was heresy that the church did back in the day to not let people have bibles.. What guards me from heresy is God not some Nicene creed book.

Again I repeat no man or church can condem anybody. You see they forgot to love your enemies 70x70.. Do you know really how they handled heresies. With lashes and sometimes death by fire at the stake or on a grid iron.. This is your church in the 300's

 

[BeyondET]

Who carried the cross? Simple question do you know? hint two...

 

[BeyondET]

A man named Simon carried Jesus cross through the streets of Jerusalem then Jesus up the hill..

 

[BeyondET]

Teach that to the people not what Hollywood teaches...

 

[BrokenSparrow]

Well the historical events of those times does help me to understand their mind set and what they were doing. I don't just go with the flow like today. I view everything I take it all in and see what is right and what is wrong.

It was heresy that the church did back in the day to not let people have bibles.. What guards me from heresy is God not some Nicene creed book.

Again I repeat no man or church can condem anybody. You see they forgot to love your enemies 70x70.. Do you know really how they handled heresies. With lashes and sometimes death by fire at the stake or on a grid iron.. This is your church in the 300's

Amen...only God has the right to condemn.

Coming up with a creed that says we condemn folks is what I call getting a little too big for their britches.