The Nicene Creed

[Bootstrap]

Evidently, coming to blows over understandings has not ended.

I don't think we are "coming to blows", we are disagreeing. And I don't think the discussion in this thread has been ugly or ill-tempered.

The main things people are saying are: (1) the Nicene Creed fails to include what we see as some of the most central parts of the Christian message, such as discipleship and love and holiness, (2) the Nicene Creed is largely about issues debated in the 300s and most of us don't even know some of the issues they were debating ("substances" versus "essences", etc.), and (3) the Nicene Creed doesn't commit us to anything beyond intellectual belief.

That doesn't mean it's heretical or wrong, but it's not terribly important to most Mennonites. If we were to say something like the Nicene Creed, we might craft something else. Christians in America are missing out on some really crucial aspects of Christianity. If I wanted something the length of the Nicene Creed to call people back to the heart of true Christianity, I would probably write something different.

The Creed commits us to nothing as long as we stand safely between the pews and say the right words.

Are you suggesting not reciting The Nicene Creed prevents “standing safely between the pews?”
Because, in other words, this (lukewarm) condition of hearts (even among Anabaptists) has been discussed now+then on this forum.

My current church is not Mennonite and we say the Nicene Creed or the Apostle's Creed every Sunday. It's not heretical or anything, but I don't find it terribly compelling. You probably do. Most people in my current church do.

To me, reciting a set of reasonably dry theological propositions every Sunday and telling people that is the heart of our faith doesn't help. To me, it's kind of boring, and a distraction from what I see as the heart of our faith.

[Josh]

The ecumenical councils would have done better to focus on the absolute and total heresy of replacing "love your enemies" with "kill your enemies". They completely failed to do so.

I fail to see any value at all in the institutions they left in their wake. To think that following Jesus means killing people who don't quite have the right theological opinions about Jesus is to indeed not know who Jesus is at all.

More pointedly, I think this is a failure to see the difference between praxis and foundational doctrines of the faith. If we fail to affirm in a full-throated way that Jesus is God, that means he's man. Maybe, we don't come to that conclusion today or tomorrow, but within a few generations Jesus becomes nothing more than a good man. That renders his teachings on 'loving our enemies' about as normative as you feel the creeds are, which is to say not very.

Who decides what is "foundational"?

I think the words of Jesus are foundational - they start with ideas like "love your enemies".

I find it very odd to think that extra-biblical concepts and doctrines are "foundational". It seems it is building on a foundation of sand.

[HondurasKeiser]

Who decides what is "foundational"?

I think the words of Jesus are foundational - they start with ideas like "love your enemies".

I find it very odd to think that extra-biblical concepts and doctrines are "foundational". It seems it is building on a foundation of sand.

So how do you decide that it's important to follow the words of Jesus? How do you trust that what you read in the Bible is true and inspired? Is declaring Christ's divinity a foundation of sand?

[ohio jones]

My current church is not Mennonite and we say the Nicene Creed or the Apostle's Creed every Sunday.

Every Sunday? That's a lot of emphasis placed on the creeds. If there's something that's a fixed part of every Sunday service I'd prefer it be something like the Lord's Prayer.

[Josh]

That's typical in a Presbyterian, Anglican (high church), etc. type of church - basically any of the magisterial Protestant churches.

[Bootstrap]

My current church is not Mennonite and we say the Nicene Creed or the Apostle's Creed every Sunday.

Every Sunday? That's a lot of emphasis placed on the creeds. If there's something that's a fixed part of every Sunday service I'd prefer it be something like the Lord's Prayer.

Oh, we do that too.

But yeah, I would prefer to use this time otherwise. But it isn't my decision.

[KingdomBuilder]

The ecumenical councils would have done better to focus on the absolute and total heresy of replacing "love your enemies" with "kill your enemies". They completely failed to do so.

I fail to see any value at all in the institutions they left in their wake. To think that following Jesus means killing people who don't quite have the right theological opinions about Jesus is to indeed not know who Jesus is at all.

-------

Who decides what is "foundational"?

I think the words of Jesus are foundational - they start with ideas like "love your enemies".

I find it very odd to think that extra-biblical concepts and doctrines are "foundational". It seems it is building on a foundation of sand.

Preach it.

[KingdomBuilder]

What's ironic is that people think that making Jesus=God actually makes less issues.

There's a spectrum of reason, yes, but I seee subordinationism across it all.

[HondurasKeiser]

What's ironic is that people think that making Jesus=God actually makes less issues.

There's a spectrum of reason, yes, but I seee subordinationism across it all.

What exactly makes things easier about believing that Jesus is not fully God? That's exactly what every other non-Christian sect/religion believe. Again, to you and Josh, if Christ is not God then what makes him different from Moses, Mohammed or Joseph Smith? What makes his death more salvific than Michael Sattler's, what makes his teaching about loving our enemies at all binding or important? Why do you choose to follow a mere man?

[PeterG]

Who decides what is "foundational"?

The answer—

I think

I think the words of Jesus are foundational - they start with ideas like "love your enemies".

The New Testament teaches that the person of Jesus is foundational. Jesus himself taught this. This is why his words are so vitally important. The exaltation of the Word by no means diminishes his teachings. Without a divine (and human) risen savior, Jesus' teachings are nothing more than an update to the Law—an improved set of rules to try (and fail) to live by. Jesus' nature gives his words meaning.

To be honest, I'm not 100% sold on the formulae of the creeds. I do not consider them inspired or inerrant. I do, however, believe that the full divinity of Jesus is unquestionably taught by the scriptures, and I've become increasingly convinced that traditional trinitarianism is the best available expression of biblically faithful teaching on the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.