The Nicene Creed is not Christian

[zeke25]

The NIcene Creed (381) states: "We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins." Baptism has never forgiven sins. The Blood of Christ washes sins away, not baptismal water. Therefore the Nicene Creed is not Christian.

A few years back I attended a Calvinist bible study at the invitation of a friend who held the Bible study. I did not know it was Calvinist until after I got there. They circulated the Nicene Creed for discussion and also had it posted on their church's website. I confronted them with "baptism forgiving sins". They tried to defend it, but could not. So they decided it wasn't really the Nicene Creed, rather it was the Apostle's Creed. Then they removed the entire creed from their website. Then they emailed me and told me to never attend another Bible study nor their church. A great group of guys, but I wasn't feeling the love.

Zeke25

 

[HammerStone]

I'll bite.

Acts 2:38 NIV
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

If a Christian absolutely refused to be baptized in any form, would you view that as problematic?

 

[zeke25]

I'll bite.

Acts 2:38 NIV
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

If a Christian absolutely refused to be baptized in any form, would you view that as problematic?

Hammerstone,

I could quote a lot of Scriptures that explain that which our salvation is dependent upon, but I’m sure you know them already. But I will accommodate if it becomes necessary. One thing for sure, salvation is not dependent upon water baptism.

For a moment, let’s look at 1 Peter 3:20-21 KJV, “20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:”

Verse 20 tells us that Noah and his family were not spiritually saved by water baptism, rather physically saved. The rest of humanity was destroyed by the very same water that Noah’s physical life was saved through, because God had him prepare an ark. Noah believed God and was obedient to the building of this ark and all the preparation leading up to the flood. Genesis 7:5 KJV, “And Noah did according unto all that [Yahowah] commanded him.”

Verse 21 tells us that verse 20 was a type for the baptism to come (for the obedience to come: “a good conscience toward God”). In other words, receiving water baptism is an outward sign (physical) of obedience to Yahoshua’s command, an outward sign that an inward (spiritual) change has already taken place. The Holy Spirit’s work of salvation has already been accomplished in the spiritual. Now, man’s response is to give an outward physical sign as a testimony to his inward spiritual change.

In answer to your question, “yes”, I would have a problem with a person who claims to be saved yet is not motivated to be baptized. This is his first chance to give the testimony of his salvation, yet he lingers and fails to do so. One could easily question whether or not salvation has really come.

But in no manner, shape, or form does this baptism participate in or complete the salvation process. Baptism is a work (even the Calvinists should understand that baptism - a work - does not save someone, because if it did he would be accomplishing his own salvation rather than God doing it).

When Peter, in Acts 2:38, says “Repent, and be baptized” he is not giving a 1, 2 list of items that must be checked off in order to be saved. He points out the requirement to be saved first; i.e., repentance. Then he points out the next step to be taken after salvation; i.e., be baptized.

It’s easy for the carnal mind to read these Scriptures and come to the opposite conclusion than the one I just explained. One must know and understand the God we serve and be led by the Holy Ghost to understand them properly. What does this tell us? It tells us that those who put together the Nicene Creed were doing it in their own flesh, their own conscience, their own volition, their own determination, and their own sincerity. What they failed to do was to check in with God, with Whom they apparently were alienated from.

Creeds are anathema. Creeds are an oath. We are commanded not to do them. Matthew 5:37 KJV, “But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” James 5:12 KJV, “But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.”


zeke25

 

[theogrit]

zeke25, brother, I disagree with your slant on Calvinism, your slant on what constitutes baptism in God's eyes and per His command, and your slant on Holy Scripture.

The Nicene Creed has always had Scripture proof texts, since that's where it's summarily founded -

http://rti.myfineforum.org/archive/nicene-creed-with-proof-texts__o_t__t_1536.html

"I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. (Ephesians 4:5; Acts 2:38) "

Water baptism is but an outward 'sign' of being baptised into Christ's death through His blood. This is what both Jesus, His disciples, Holy Scripture teach, and the Nicene Creed summarises.

 

[ewq1938]

The NIcene Creed (381) states: "We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins." Baptism has never forgiven sins. The Blood of Christ washes sins away, not baptismal water. Therefore the Nicene Creed is not Christian.

You are incorrect about baptism not being able to wash away sins:

Mar_1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

I suggest becoming more familiar with the scriptures before making such strong statements.

 

[ewq1938]

Water baptism is but an outward 'sign' of being baptised into Christ's death through His blood.

It wasn't related to Christ's blood at all originally when John the Baptist preached it. Since the law, God has always provided a way to "wash away" sins. Through Christ's sacrifice the forgiving of sins can be achieved verbally rather than through a physical act ie sacrifice or water baptism.

 

[Born_Again]

Being baptized is a symbol of being born again in Christ, that being said, if we are born again in Christ, are we not forgiven of our sins? My personal feelings, because I have never been one to use scripture to defend my arguments, just because you have been baptized doesn't make it all go away. You must then commit to following Christ. Then all the rest falls into place and then you are considered sinless... though we all sin but by Grace, we are forgiven.

To expand why I don't use scripture.... Scripture is so often taken out of context by those who take it at face value. Verses are not always prima' fascia' and some tend to take it that way and put their own spin on what they think they mean. So generally, I don't argue scripture with someone unless I can see evidence they have done their homework. So like in this instance, I take scripture out of the equation and go off of what we all know to be true. That's just good apologetics.

 

[zeke25]

zeke25, brother, I disagree with your slant on Calvinism, your slant on what constitutes baptism in God's eyes and per His command, and your slant on Holy Scripture.

The Nicene Creed has always had Scripture proof texts, since that's where it's summarily founded -

http://rti.myfineforum.org/archive/nicene-creed-with-proof-texts__o_t__t_1536.html

"I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. (Ephesians 4:5; Acts 2:38) "

Water baptism is but an outward 'sign' of being baptised into Christ's death through His blood. This is what both Jesus, His disciples, Holy Scripture teach, and the Nicene Creed summarises.

theogrit,

So, you disagree with my slant on Calvinism. What is my slant, because I must have missed it? I did not write a slant. I told a true story about a whacko Bible study and church (that just happened to be Calvinistic). It could have been Methodist or anything else. So, we have one church, pastor, etc. that openly lies about what type of creed he has on his website. Are you saying that all Calvinists are this way? I didn’t say that.

I have no slant on baptism in God’s eyes. He instituted the ceremony and it is very clearly written in the Scriptures. It is not a necessary step for one to receive salvation. That’s straightforward and unambiguous.

You don’t like my slant on Scripture, but you failed to address even one Scripture that I included in my post. Me thinks you don’t like Scripture and are inept in using it, otherwise why wouldn’t you point out what is wrong with the Scriptures I used. Furthermore, the Scriptures you used Eph 4:5 and Acts 2:38 have absolutely nothing to do with what the Nicene Creed so boldly and erroneously declares and that is that baptism saves a person from their sins.

You got those Scriptures off the internet. Those same Scriptures were there eleven to twelve years ago when I confronted the church. BTW, that apostate church was judged and no longer exists.

The Nicene Creed has proof texts for everything except for “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”. There is no proof text for that. So, how many errors do we allow to creep in and still affirm the Nicene Creed. Maybe you are comfortable with another dozen or so since one doesn’t bother you. The gospel of Christ has no compromises. That’s why it is so offensive to the world and those in the world.

If the Nicene Creed was only summarizing, as you said, then they should have worded it in such a way to make themselves understood. But they did not. I smell a rat in the council. Besides, you didn’t address the Scriptures that say we should not have creeds. Do you not believe the Scriptures, are they only there so that you can pick and choose the ones you like, kinda like Baskin-Robbins 31 flavors?

zeke25

 

[zeke25]

You are incorrect about baptism not being able to wash away sins:

Mar_1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

I suggest becoming more familiar with the scriptures before making such strong statements.

ewq1938,

John did as all of the Old Testament prophets did, he called his people to repentance. And he used the symbolism of baptism in which to do it. But he was also preparing the way for Christ and said in Matthew 3:11 KJV, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:”

John was preaching prior to the death and shed Blood of Christ and resurrection. If you think John’s baptism is the same that is spoken of after Christ’s sacrifice, then it is you who needs to become more familiar with the Scriptures.


Zeke25

 

[ewq1938]

ewq1938,

John did as all of the Old Testament prophets did, he called his people to repentance. And he used the symbolism of baptism in which to do it. But he was also preparing the way for Christ and said in Matthew 3:11 KJV, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:”

John was preaching prior to the death and shed Blood of Christ and resurrection. If you think John’s baptism is the same that is spoken of after Christ’s sacrifice, then it is you who needs to become more familiar with the Scriptures.


Zeke25

You are avoiding your error. You claimed baptism didn't forgive sins but you were wrong.

 

[zeke25]

You are avoiding your error. You claimed baptism didn't forgive sins but you were wrong.

ewq1938,

How many times do you want to go around this block? I was unequivocal, the Bible does not teach that baptism forgives or removes sins. Only the shed Blood of Yahoshua can do that. You are vying against a core doctrine of the faith. Without the doctrine of the shed Blood of Christ being the only requirement for the forgiveness of sins, then you are teaching a different gospel. If you have this in error then your are espousing an antichrist position. All cults and anti-christian churches and anti-christians attack or denigrate the shed Blood of Christ. This is their defining mark of apostasy. Do you really want to pick this hill to set your standard in and die there in your sins?

zeke25

 

[ewq1938]

ewq1938,

How many times do you want to go around this block? I was unequivocal, the Bible does not teach that baptism forgives or removes sins.

And you were/are wrong. Now what?

 

[Born_Again]

And you were/are wrong. Now what?

No, he's not. I don't understand how you can say that.... Matt. 3-11 says Repentance. It does not say forgiveness. If you read it for what is says, it does not say they are forgiven. They have to repent, then ask for forgiveness. Those are two separate acts. If you read my previous post, you would see that your reasoning is why I don't argue scripture. You don't know the context. I would ask for the Holy Spirit to guide you through scripture. But if you want to keep going, feel free to toss some more scripture at me!

Good Grief!

Zeke, this isn't worth your time.

BA

 

[DPMartin]

There is no mention of baptism here all in the creed of the First Council of Nicea (325):

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth];Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost.

　
And you have omitted the rest of the statement in the 381 version here is the statement in whole:
"In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; 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."

　
Hence the creed of the catholic church declaring themselves a, or the apostolic church. An organization started as a political expediency, in the eyes of the emperor Constantine. The emperors made choices like who shall be Pope at least as late as the 500's.

but what baptism is acknowledged here? Water? Which, by the by, in those days was recognized as part of the remission of sin: Lk:3:3: And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; (meaning John the Baptist) but even John says: Mt:3:11: I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

So is the creed of 381 stating baptism by water, or by Spirit and fire? And its also a quote of Peter almost verbatim, which by any standard is scriptural.

So it would be deceiving to others to state that the text in question is in error. Its a innocent general statement that can, by the reader, mean baptism by anything when removed from context as you have. Hence it stands to reason why they would ask you to leave.

Though yes Jesus says: Mt:26:28: For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
But why baptism of the Spirit is essential and the Blood required is explained by Paul in Hebrews chapters 9 and 10.

 

[theogrit]

It seems evident to me that we're talking around one another with semantics, especially in defining baptism. Calvinists, which I am, believe in a continuity between the Old and New Testament, rather than Dispensational theology. All Scripture is in harmony and consistent throughout. The plan of God from "before the foundation of the world" has always been for the Son to cleanse His people through His blood, which is the only sufficient and efficacious baptism - through the blood of Christ. Circumcision, the Levitical sacrificial system, and the Lord's Supper and water baptism are all outward signs of God's eternal covenant for the redemption of His people through the cleansing blood of Christ.

 

[Born_Again]

It seems evident to me that we're talking around one another with semantics, especially in defining baptism. Calvinists, which I am, believe in a continuity between the Old and New Testament, rather than Dispensational theology. All Scripture is in harmony and consistent throughout. The plan of God from "before the foundation of the world" has always been for the Son to cleanse His people through His blood, which is the only sufficient and efficacious baptism - through the blood of Christ. Circumcision, the Levitical sacrificial system, and the Lord's Supper and water baptism are all outward signs of God's eternal covenant for the redemption of His people through the cleansing blood of Christ.

But does baptism alone forgive you of sins? That is the debate here.

 

[zeke25]

There is no mention of baptism here all in the creed of the First Council of Nicea (325):

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth];Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost.

　
And you have omitted the rest of the statement in the 381 version here is the statement in whole:
"In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; 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."

　
Hence the creed of the catholic church declaring themselves a, or the apostolic church. An organization started as a political expediency, in the eyes of the emperor Constantine. The emperors made choices like who shall be Pope at least as late as the 500's.

but what baptism is acknowledged here? Water? Which, by the by, in those days was recognized as part of the remission of sin: Lk:3:3: And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; (meaning John the Baptist) but even John says: Mt:3:11: I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

So is the creed of 381 stating baptism by water, or by Spirit and fire? And its also a quote of Peter almost verbatim, which by any standard is scriptural.

So it would be deceiving to others to state that the text in question is in error. Its a innocent general statement that can, by the reader, mean baptism by anything when removed from context as you have. Hence it stands to reason why they would ask you to leave.

Though yes Jesus says: Mt:26:28: For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
But why baptism of the Spirit is essential and the Blood required is explained by Paul in Hebrews chapters 9 and 10.

DP said: Hence the creed of the catholic church declaring themselves a, or the apostolic church.
zeke replies: That’s fine for the RCC. If they want to use the Nicene Creed. But the group I was dealing with was labeling itself Calvinistic not RCC. Why would they use the RCC Nicene Creed. Calvinists and the RCC are by no means buddies. Calvinists preach regularly against the RCC. It is hypocritical to adopt their heretic creed; except, that the animosity between the two is smoke and mirrors. The SDA in another thread are doing the same thing. They act like they hate the RCC, but when it suits their purposes they adopt RCC heresies as their own. Another game of smoke and mirrors. You really need to get out more, except you are part of the deception.

DP said: So is the creed of 381 stating baptism by water, or by Spirit and fire? And its also a quote of Peter almost verbatim, which by any standard is scriptural. - and DP included a reference to Mt 3:11 & Lk 3:3.
zeke25: You obviously did not agree with my posts #3, #8, & #9. No need to repeat myself.

DP: So it would be deceiving to others to state that the text in question is in error. Its a innocent general statement that can, by the reader, mean baptism by anything when removed from context as you have.
zeke: If it is innocent to you, I’m not preventing you from using it. But the only deception is on your part, hoping to drag others into your compromise.

DP: Hence it stands to reason why they would ask you to leave.
zeke: Does that explain why they flat out lied about their precious creed. Why did they suddenly decide that it was no longer the Nicene Creed and decided to falsely call it the Apostle’s Creed. You obviously do not care about the morals of who you defend or deal with. So, go live your life of sin, compromise, and deception and have a good time. Or, instead you could fear God and repent. And this creed was already on their website, but not identified for what it was - I recognized it and I had a copy in my hand from the bible study handout. It even had all the Scripture references attached that were plastered all over the internet. But the dolts, several hundred of them, were praising their pastor for looking up and providing all of the Scriptures references - they actually thought he did it all and that it was something new. Where were you attending church in 2003-4? Monterey, California maybe? A scary part about it was that a large percentage of this congregation were young military families. Seared consciences, impaired cognitive abilities, the blind leading the blind - it ought not be so! But that generation and their parents had been taught that lies are acceptable if needed to win an argument and save face, and that blind obedience to an evil ruler was equally acceptable as long as you liked him and he tickled your ears. Where was God in all this? I suspect He was in mourning for the lost.

DP: But why baptism of the Spirit is essential and the Blood required is explained by Paul in Hebrews chapters 9 and 10.
zeke: You’ll need to be more specific about “baptism of the Spirit” being in Hebrews 9 & 10. You might even need to be more specific about the term you are using, because your theological bent is showing through here. I’ve never known the RCC or Calvinists to believe in the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

BTW, as I’m sure you recall we have dialogued before. I found nothing edifying about it. So don’t be surprised if I ignore your unsupportable contentions. Give me something of substance or I’m moving on.


zeke25

 

[zeke25]

It seems evident to me that we're talking around one another with semantics, especially in defining baptism. Calvinists, which I am, believe in a continuity between the Old and New Testament, rather than Dispensational theology. All Scripture is in harmony and consistent throughout. The plan of God from "before the foundation of the world" has always been for the Son to cleanse His people through His blood, which is the only sufficient and efficacious baptism - through the blood of Christ. Circumcision, the Levitical sacrificial system, and the Lord's Supper and water baptism are all outward signs of God's eternal covenant for the redemption of His people through the cleansing blood of Christ.

theogrit,

It all sounds good until we get to "the redemption of His people". Calvinists have a different take on who "His people" are. Calvinist also have an anti-biblical definition about who is covered by the Blood of Christ and what it accomplished. As we all should know, the pre-picks have no need of the Blood to wash away their sins. After all, they were pre-picked prior to the Blood being applied. I'm not real good with double talk. So, you can express yourself plainly. I'm more familiar with Calvinist theology than you.

zeke25

 

[zeke25]

But does baptism alone forgive you of sins? That is the debate here.

bornagain,

You're absolutely correct on both accounts. I am wasting a lot of time here and "does baptism alone forgive you of sins" is what the discussion should be about. But the opponents came out of the woodwork when I mentioned Calvinism. After all the Calvinists love the Nicene Creed. They take it personally. So, I just gave them more fuel for their burning rage. But I'm pretty much through here unless someone can actually defend "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins", which they can't. If they want to discuss Calvinism further they can start their own thread.

Nice meeting you bornagain.

Zeke25

 

[theogrit]

You're wrong, brother zeke. No one is redeemed apart from the blood of Christ - this is a strong element in both Holy Scripture and Calvinism's use of Scripture to explain Scripture on all matters of theology. LOL, I have studied the Scriptures since my youth, and everything Calvin ever wrote. I've memorized large portions of both, as well as the Scripture proofed Westminster Standards (The Westminster Larger Catechism, The Westminster Shorter Catechism, and the Westminster Confession of Faith. I won't banter theological credentials or offices otherwise online, and I don't doubt your knowledge of Calvinism, but I'm pretty sure I'm more agreeable with the Reformed understanding of Scripture than you, my eternal friend.