An Analysis of the Nicene Creed

A year ago, I analyzed the Apostles' Creed, answering the request of a friend. Back then, I concluded that on the most part -- on the surface, my church agrees with every point -- as each point pretty much comes straight from the Bible.

Today I will analyze the Nicene Creed. I'll use the 381 version (First Council of Constantinople). And this time, you'll see a couple of points of departure as per my church's belief.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

Sounds good to me. There may be one tiny exception, but not worth mentioning here ... maybe I'll touch on it in a later post. But for all practical purposes, God created us, the angels, the planets, the stars, and so on, and so on.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; by whom all things were made;

I'm in agreement with most of this. If we were to delete "not made, consubstantial with the Father," then I'd be all aboard. The difference: my church teaches that Jesus was created in our beginning ... before all the worlds were created. In other words, Jesus was the very first entity God created -- he was "begotten" or born of God spiritually. Jesus was entirely distinct from God, and He helped God to create all the worlds. But then ...

who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;

This also sounds good. This is when the Jesus came down to Earth to gain a human body, which was conceived in Mary's womb through the power of the Holy Ghost.

He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;

Yep, yep, and yep -- straight from the Bible. Though, that last bit "sitteth on the right hand of the Father" seems kind of difficult if the Son is the same as the Father. Okay -- maybe I'm getting a little snippy.

from thence He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

Looking forward to it ... again, straight out of the scripture.

And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.

Sounds good ... except I'm a little hesitant on the bit saying "together is worshiped and glorified," as it seems to be more about reconfirming the concept that they are one and the same. Well -- maybe that's just a technicality, as we do worship all three. Maybe I'm picking up on the feeling that we worship the three entities in different ways. We worship and pray to God. We worship Jesus as our Redeemer. We acknowledge that the Holy Ghost helps to deliver us Truth, gives us comfort, and also serves as a conduit for our prayers.

In one holy catholic and apostolic Church;

Yes -- I pause on this one, because while I'll say we agree with this, it's worth noting that here "catholic" (small "c") means "universal." And I think all religions believe that there exists a "one and true" religion that we must all seek to find. We may disagree on the identity of that "catholic" Church, but we do believe in it. We additionally believe that apostles are important in a church to help lead us. This may be unique to Christian churches, while other religions have other types of leaders similar to apostles. Though, in an earlier post I muse: where exactly are those apostles today in our Christian churches?

we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Yes -- again. Sounds good. 

So, conclusion? What my church teaches is mostly in harmony with this Creed. It's only the bit in red above, and perhaps the orange to a smaller degree, where my church would disagree.

To some people, that is a "small" difference, as do we really need to know the exact details of the Godhead in order to worship and love them? Is Jesus' sacrifice any different? Does Jesus cease to be the only path to heaven? Many argue that all Christian denominations agree on the points that really count for our salvation.

But for many others, it is a huge difference. How can one truly know the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, if they can't grasp their true nature? 

While I can understand that good question, I can't grasp the idea of a just and loving God denying heaven to one only because they got the Godhead wrong, when they had nevertheless believed in Christ and had given themselves to follow His teachings and loved and helped their neighbors. I strongly believe that God will judge us based on our knowledge and how we use it and react to it, rather than on our knowledge. I sincerely do not believe that innocent ignorance will condemn any of us.

For when it comes down to it, how can we really know? God has purposefully hidden himself from all physical evidence, so that we can all believe the best we can, exercise faith, and demonstrate our ability to handle uncertain knowledge.

Even the one question of the nature of the Godhead -- whether they be of one substance, or whether they be distinct individuals -- cannot be determined by a reading of the New Testament (or Old Testament) alone. There are verses that indicate they are all separate (the appearance of all Three at Jesus' baptism as distinct individuals), and others that indicate that they are "one." 

And the different denominations interpret these verses separately. My church interprets the "one" verses as meaning "one in purpose." And what about "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9)? Well, if they are Father and Son -- wouldn't they look very similar to each other?

The Nicene Christian denominations, which comprise Catholics and most Protestant churches, interpret these differently. The "one" verses are literal. As to why they appear separately in other verses? Well, it's all incomprehensible -- we can't understand the things of God with our human brains.

Either way we look at it, there was a Great Debate in the 300s, when Arius confronted Alexander, the bishop, and other church leaders. Arius taught that God and Jesus were separate, and that there was a time Jesus didn't exist, and that he was born (begotten) of God spiritually. Alexander and others believed in an eternal generation -- something about God putting his essence into something we call the Son, which is of the same substance as God. And both sides were using the same set of scriptures to back up their doctrines.

And it was well ... tearing apart the young Church. It triggered the Nicene Council, out of which came the Nicene Creed(s). Alexander won, and Arius lost -- his ideas anathematized. And the Council officially called the "individual members of the Godhead" doctrine a heresy. (And yes -- that's poor Arius cast out in black in that picture up above. That jerk! It really was all about him.)

Thus, you'll hear today people calling my church heretical, as it brings back some (but not all) of Arius' beliefs. And of course, my church contends that the Nicene Council was acting out of apostasy -- which had already been happening for a couple of centuries by that time.

Who can say which one was right when the New Testament supports both ideas?

Well -- we are where we are now. I hope you've enjoyed this analysis -- learning how my church is similar to Nicene-based churches, and how we are different -- at least in this one aspect. What do you think?