CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
I'm okay with that. In my view, majority consensus is not a valid means to test the veracity of a truth statement.Most Protestants would disagree with you. The Nicene Creed is the accepted
standard for this board. You assert the Nicene Creed "adds concepts that are not biblical" but don't say what they are. That is a radical claim contrary to most of Christianity: Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox. You stand alone.
All one needs to do is allow oneself to ask the question, "what does it really mean?" And if an answer is not found, one should feel free to reject it. That's what I did. I thoroughly investigated the matter for many months. I finally decided that the entire thing was nonsensical. And I concluded that the Bible would never teach anything so absurd. So I rejected it. I don't reject the incarnation. I just think the Council did a really bad job of explaining it, borrowing Greek ideas and inserting concepts that aren't Biblical.
Most Protestants I meet affirm the Nicene Creed, but have no idea what it means. Why would they do that? Someone very wise told it to me this way. "The doctrine of the Trinity is like an electrified fence. Get too close and you might get hurt or even killed." This explains why most Protestants affirm the doctrine. No one wants to be hurt, excommunicated, or burned at the stake.
Those who affirm the Nicene Creed fall into two camps: Those who think they understand it, and those who apprehend it as a mystery. Those who claim to understand it can't actually explain it. Rather, many resort to goofy analogies, which don't explain anything and most often explain modalism rather than the Trinity.
Most people, including me, would rather not argue about it.