The Nicene Creed

[KingdomBuilder]

Valerie, what translation are you using?

Higher quality translations render "divisions" and/or "sects"... Not "heresies".

[Valerie]

Who decides what is heresy? These things were contended & dealt with long before the Protestant (which includes Anabaptists) Reformation. The Holy Spirit was given to the Church. In THIS case, over 300 Bishops met in council ( you know, the brotherhood's patterned after Acts 15) met together to address the heresy at hand at that time. I don't find it difficult to understand this!

Actually, this council was called by an emperor, and the emperor continued to honor the Sun God, having coins minted to show him together with the Sun God long after he "converted" to Christianity. To me, that disqualifies him as the source of true doctrine. Before Constantine, the church held councils when it felt they were needed.

Constantine thought the way to unite Christianity was to establish a detailed common theology that settled questions like this, but it actually led to deep divisions among people who believed what the Bible teaches but disagreed about systematic theology. And perhaps they got a little lost in trying to explain what cannot be explained.

Isn't the Bible good enough? Do we really need to be unified on the basis of theology from church councils convened by pagan emperors?

Constantine is irrelevant to what the council of Bishops sought together as representatives of the church, called to settle a hetetical division of the Church. Why is this so hard to understand? Constantine had no input in the outcome. The over 300 Bishops did. The heresy was started by a priest (or Bishop) who had Scripture too.I think you know the Bible was not canonized yet however, this situation was wreaking havoc. Sola Sciptira has led to over 40,000 sects who name the name of Christ. You tell me. Maybe making it personal will help- shy are you attending the Presbyterian Church but claim to be Mennonite? Both use the same Bible, so what's the difference,?

[Bootstrap]

m together with the Sun God long after he "converted" to Christianity. To me, that disqualifies him as the source of true doctrine. Before Constantine, the church held councils when it felt they were needed.

Constantine thought the way to unite Christianity was to establish a detailed common theology that settled questions like this, but it actually led to deep divisions among people who believed what the Bible teaches but disagreed about systematic theology. And perhaps they got a little lost in trying to explain what cannot be explained.

Isn't the Bible good enough? Do we really need to be unified on the basis of theology from church councils convened by pagan emperors?

Constantine is irrelevant to what the council of Bishops sought together as representatives of the church, called to settle a hetetical division of the Church. Why is this so hard to understand? Constantine had no input in the outcome.

The church was doing just fine with this question before Constantine insisted we needed theology formulated in terms that people who read Greek philosophy would understand. We didn't need to borrow words from Gnostics, the words of Jesus worked just fine.

In so many ways, Constantine changed what Christianity was about, creating the Holy Roman Empire. This was part of that, making systematic theology really important for people who already agreed about the deity of Jesus Christ.

The heresy was started by a priest (or Bishop) who had Scripture too.

If you start looking into the history of this, you might find that it's just as complicated as the theology.

I'll start a thread on what Arius actually taught. In general, it's best to avoid learning what someone believes from their opponents, who often get it wrong.

[Valerie]

m together with the Sun God long after he "converted" to Christianity. To me, that disqualifies him as the source of true doctrine. Before Constantine, the church held councils when it felt they were needed.

Constantine thought the way to unite Christianity was to establish a detailed common theology that settled questions like this, but it actually led to deep divisions among people who believed what the Bible teaches but disagreed about systematic theology. And perhaps they got a little lost in trying to explain what cannot be explained.

Isn't the Bible good enough? Do we really need to be unified on the basis of theology from church councils convened by pagan emperors?

Constantine is irrelevant to what the council of Bishops sought together as representatives of the church, called to settle a hetetical division of the Church. Why is this so hard to understand? Constantine had no input in the outcome.

The church was doing just fine with this question before Constantine insisted we needed theology formulated in terms that people who read Greek philosophy would understand. We didn't need to borrow words from Gnostics, the words of Jesus worked just fine.

In so many ways, Constantine changed what Christianity was about, creating the Holy Roman Empire. This was part of that, making systematic theology really important for people who already agreed about the deity of Jesus Christ.

The heresy was started by a priest (or Bishop) who had Scripture too.

If you start looking into the history of this, you might find that it's just as complicated as the theology.

I'll start a thread on what Arius actually taught. In general, it's best to avoid learning what someone believes from their opponents, who often get it wrong.

So easy to stand back & say what should or should not have happened 1700 years ago. Let's just trust the Holy Spirit and not human reasoning, we have enough trouble with keeping our own denominations together today without trying to say we could have done better at the time of the Nicene Council. How arrogant would that be- we were not there to truly understand. When we get our own churches on the same page perhaps we could revisit 4th century to tell them what should have happened. Most Churches today appreciate the Nicene Creed. They understand the value of it, and so lets move on.

[HondurasKeiser]

It's actually very clear. Unless someone wants to suggest at our God is into facades and pretending.

Would you say YHWH was nonviolent/nonresistant in the OT?

[Judas Maccabeus]

Unless, of course, you can prove that anywhere it was taught that YHWH would ever be a human capable of sinning....

While He appears capable of sinning, or if He was not, it really does not much matter, unless you need write a paper on the subject. The point is, He did not sin.

Only God is without sin.

J.M.

[MattY]

You can certainly be a Christian without knowing the word Gelassenheit. Same holds for the word Trinity. Both words have been helpful to many Christians, but they derive their authority from what the Bible says, not the other way around.
Personally, I find it very helpful to use the same language as the Bible when describing what it says. The Bible teaches what we really need to know. And the foundation is Jesus.

If we stick with the Bible wording, we might have different ideas in our minds, but at least we will be saying the same thing. Way less likely to end up far apart if we stick with the Bible wording when it comes to doctrine.

I do not actually believe that it would be better if we say the same words if we don't mean the same or a similar thing. That would be, literally, meaningless. False teachers are good at wresting scripture and sometimes we need to define what it teaches in a way that excludes false teaching.

Adoptionism (the idea that Jesus was just a man who was adopted as the son), Arianism, modalism, patripassianism (a form of modalism which takes it to its logical conclusion - that the Father died on the cross) - all appeared before the Council of Nicea, using biblical language for justification. We might be more "unified" in an institutional sense if we accepted such things, just as we would if we accepted people who practice homosexuality, but we'd believe in a different Jesus and a different Gospel.

[KingdomBuilder]

So it looks like I've likely squandered my reputation on MN beyond revoke....

time to leave???

[Ernie]

I do not actually believe that it would be better if we say the same words if we don't mean the same or a similar thing. That would be, literally, meaningless. False teachers are good at wresting scripture and sometimes we need to define what it teaches in a way that excludes false teaching.

I have no problem with giving commentary, but it should be stated as such.
False teachers and heretics present their commentary as Bible truth, and this is what causes problems, IMO.

[Josh]

Exactly how is modalism a “different gospel”?

Apostolic Pentecostals seem to believe in the same gospel I do and the same Jesus.

I disagree with German Baptist Brethren, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Apostolic Pentecostals that salvation happens upon baptism. But other than that issue, we pretty much believe in the same Jesus and the same gospel. I don’t see how the modalism of Apostolic Pentecostals changes anything.