The Nicene Creed is not Christian

[ewq1938]

All scripture is true. But keeping it in context allows the student of the Word to discover whether something is instructional, historical or prophecy. The story of Job is historical, NOT instructional. It is TRUE that Job said that God would laugh.

That isn't in dispute. Surely he said it but what he said was not true. Therefore, as has already been established, parts of scripture does contain things that are not true or factual statements. Inerrancy only applies to what God has inspired or said, it does not cover everything people say or think in scripture.

 

[ewq1938]

None of this is relevant to why I posted that verse. You aren't understanding what I have said and why I said it. You also do not understand what inerrancy means and does not mean in regard to scripture.

ewq,

One of your major problems with Job 9:23 is that you have not done adequate research to understand its meaning. To understand its meaning, we need to know that according to Job 9:1, this is Job answering.

Job 9:23 reads in several different translations:

New International Version
When a scourge brings sudden death, he mocks the despair of the innocent.

New Living Translation
When a plague sweeps through, he laughs at the death of the innocent.

English Standard Version
When disaster brings sudden death, he mocks at the calamity of the innocent.

New American Standard Bible
"If the scourge kills suddenly, He mocks the despair of the innocent.

King James Bible
If the scourge slay suddenly, he will laugh at the trial of the innocent.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
When disaster brings sudden death, He mocks the despair of the innocent.

International Standard Version
If a calamity causes sudden death, he'll mock at the despair of the innocent.

NET Bible
If a scourge brings sudden death, he mocks at the despair of the innocent.

Douay-Rheims Bible
If he scourge, let him kill at once, and not laugh at the pains of the innocent.

English Revised Version
If the scourge slay suddenly, he will mock at the trial of the innocent.

Revised Standard Version
When disaster brings sudden death, he mocks at the calamity of the innocent.

New Revised Standard Version
When disaster brings sudden death, he mocks at the calamity of the innocent.

The word translated as 'calamity' in ESV, RSV and NRSV has the footnote, 'The meaning of the Hebrew word is uncertain'. You are basing your understanding of God laughing on a word whose meaning is uncertain. i think you are on the wrong side of the debate.

Before you tear strips off God's inerrant Word, I recommend you take a breather and examine the text as it does not seem to say what you want it to mean.

Good studying!

Oz

 

[ewq1938]

The opinion of man is recorded in God's inerrant Word (theopneustos, 1 Tim 3:16).

And that's what I have said all along. There are untrue things in scripture because inerrancy ONLY applies to that which God inspires not what man says without inspiration.

 

[OzSpen]

None of this is relevant to why I posted that verse. You aren't understanding what I have said and why I said it. You also do not understand what inerrancy means and does not mean in regard to scripture.

It is relevant because you support the wrong translation of Job 9:23.

I most certainly understand what inerrancy means. It means that everything that the Bible affirms is without error in the original MSS.

St Augustine got it right but you don't seem to be able to match his excellence in confirming the nature of inerrancy:

St. Augustine wrote to Jerome,

On such terms we might amuse ourselves without fear of offending each other in the field of Scripture, but I might well wonder if the amusement was not at my expense. For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the Ms. is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason (Letter 83.2, Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers, First Series, vol 1, p. 350, emphasis added).

Why can't you confirm that meaning of inerrancy as 'completely free from error' and if there is any fault in the MSS it relates to the MSS, translator, or the one reading it. The fault is NOT with the Scripture?

What prevents you from confirming this as the meaning of inerrancy?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

And that's what I have said all along. There are untrue things in scripture because inerrancy ONLY applies to that which God inspires not what man says without inspiration.

If a human being said something that was untrue and that untrue statement is recorded in Scripture as being an accurate statement of what was said, that is included in my understanding of inerrancy because it states that all that is affirmed in Scripture is without error.

A court document that includes the words of a liar can affirm that what is recorded is without error.

Oz

 

[Joyful]

If a human being said something that was untrue and that untrue statement is recorded in Scripture as being an accurate statement of what was said, that is included in my understanding of inerrancy because it states that all that is affirmed in Scripture is without error.

A court document that includes the words of a liar can affirm that what is recorded is without error.

Oz

Just because it is in the Bible does not mean it is worth practicing. Many sinful practices are recorded too. We need to discern what is of God or not by knowing what God is all about.

All good and bad examples are there for us to learn to practice what is godly.

blessings.

 

[Wormwood]

ewq,

You may agree with my statement about inspiration, but you are not communicating very well if that is the case. My objection was to this statement by you:

"there are untrue things found in scripture that doesn't come from God but the imperfect minds of humans."

This contradicts the idea that "all of Scripture is God-breathed." If all of Scripture is God-breathed, then even the parts that record the deceptions of Satan and the follies of Job's friends are preserved, inspired words from God. The Holy Spirit inspired the author to record those words for a purpose. You are thinking like a Western, 21st century, scientifically-minded critic and it is causing you to raise issues with ancient texts that are non-issues.

 

[ewq1938]

It is relevant because you support the wrong translation of Job 9:23.

The translation doesn't matter, pick any that works for you. I only cite the verse because Job is not speaking the truth in it. Going on about the translation being faulty is just a red herring.

I most certainly understand what inerrancy means. It means that everything that the Bible affirms is without error in the original MSS.

No, that isn't what it means.

Why can't you confirm that meaning of inerrancy as 'completely free from error' and if there is any fault in the MSS it relates to the MSS, translator, or the one reading it.

Go back and read how Wormwood described it. If you can't understand what they said you certainly won't understand what I have said.

 

[ewq1938]

ewq,

You may agree with my statement about inspiration, but you are not communicating very well if that is the case. My objection was to this statement by you:

"there are untrue things found in scripture that doesn't come from God but the imperfect minds of humans."

This contradicts the idea that "all of Scripture is God-breathed."

That is only pertaining to what God breathed not the parts of scripture God didn't breathe or inspire. God wasn't responsible for what Job errantly said. God wasn't the one harming Job nor did he put the bad words in Jobs mouth. It would make God a hypocrite if he did inspire Job top say what he said because God chided him for what he said!

 

[OzSpen]

The translation doesn't matter, pick any that works for you. I only cite the verse because Job is not speaking the truth in it. Going on about the translation being faulty is just a red herring.

The translation DOES matter because you are NOT speaking the truth about what Job stated with the translation that you accept. You are speaking error about what Job said because you don't care about the translation.

 

[ewq1938]

The translation DOES matter because you are NOT speaking the truth about what Job stated with the translation that you accept.

The translation doesn't matter. Use whatever one you prefer. I didn't write the verse nor did the translations so take your complaints elsewhere. Your entire argument is a red herring and I won't bother responding further. It is understood by all but you apparently that Job said untrue things.

 

[zeke25]

How many pages back was it that someone said let's return to the OP? And it hasn't happened yet. How long has it been since ewq1938 said he put me on his ignore list, and for good reason? But of course, I wrote him off a long time ago too. But he still has everyone dancing to his tune instead of the OP. Do you really think you're going to change his theology? He's playing you. I know some of you are irritated when you have to puff yourself up with "I'm a scholar" or "I've read the Bible many times over" or you quote many works and books you've read to support your position. He's not impressed. He has his own theological ideas.

Meanwhile, I think my point has been made from the OP. Many people believe that the Nicene Creed is correct in saying that baptism forgives sins. They support that position. And despite those who defend the NC by saying that it probably meant something else, they haven't helped those who think the NC is stating a truism. Simple fact is the NC is a corrupted document by that one false teaching.

Have a nice day

 

[StanJ]

I don't have to read the acts to know what Jesus teaches, even though I read the rest of the Bible over and over.

So are you only concerned with the RED words in your Bible? There is a lot more to the Bible than Jesus' RED words.
My point was Jesus didn't teach everything to everyone, but His word does.
Do you KNOW what Paul did in Acts 19?

 

[Wormwood]

ewq,

That is only pertaining to what God breathed not the parts of scripture God didn't breathe or inspire. God wasn't responsible for what Job errantly said. God wasn't the one harming Job nor did he put the bad words in Jobs mouth. It would make God a hypocrite if he did inspire Job top say what he said because God chided him for what he said!

This argument about Job's friends as it relates to inspiration makes no sense and has nothing to do with how the reliability and inspiration of the Bible is understood.

Yes, lets drop this and go back to the OP, if anyone still wants to discuss it. Otherwise I will just lock this topic.

 

[zeke25]

ewq,


This argument about Job's friends as it relates to inspiration makes no sense and has nothing to do with how the reliability and inspiration of the Bible is understood.

Yes, lets drop this and go back to the OP, if anyone still wants to discuss it. Otherwise I will just lock this topic.

hear hear

 

[OzSpen]

ewq,


This argument about Job's friends as it relates to inspiration makes no sense and has nothing to do with how the reliability and inspiration of the Bible is understood.

Yes, lets drop this and go back to the OP, if anyone still wants to discuss it. Otherwise I will just lock this topic.

Wormwood,

[SIZE=large]What have we concluded about whether this statement from the Nicene Creed is Christian or not? 'I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins'.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=large]As has been raised, Acts 2:38 states:[/SIZE]

• 
  [SIZE=large]'[/SIZE]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' (NIV).
  
• 
  'Peter replied, "Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit' (NLT).
  
• 
  'And Peter said to them, “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.' (ESV).
  

Is this verse teaching that one needs to be baptized to experience forgiveness of sins, and so agree with the Nicene Creed?
A couple points of Greek grammar may open this verse up for us:

1. 
   'Repent' is an aorist (point action), imperative (command) plural. It is a command to the group to repent. The plural emphasis is important. To repent refers to a change of mind and life. Do a u-turn in life and do it immediately (aorist).
   
2. 
   But then the writer changes to the singular from the plural. This is not made evident in the English translations. The singular is 'be baptized each (singular) of you'.
   
3. 
   eis aphesin (to forgiveness) twn hamartwn humwn (of sins of you). The controversy that has happened over hundreds of years relates to the meaning of this phrase 'to/for forgiveness of your sins'. The conclusions have generally amounted to either support for (a) sacramental theology - baptism as a sacrament and necessary for salvation, or (b) evangelical theology where baptism confirms repentance and is not a requirement for a salvation.
   

I have found A T Robertson's summary of the issues to be wise words:

Unto the remission of your sins (eis aphesin tôn hamartiôn hûmôn). This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of eis does exist as in 1Co 2:7 eis doxan hêmôn (for our glory). But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of eis for aim or purpose. It is seen in Mt 10:41 in three examples eis onoma prophêtou, dikaiou, mathêtou where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Mt 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah (eis to kêrugma Iôna). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koine generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received (A. T. Robertson 1930. Word Pictures in the New Testament: Acts, vol 3. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, pp. 35-36. Source: Studylight.org, Acts 2:38).

The change from plural to singular in Acts 2;38 is a strong indicator that Robertson's exegesis has support where people (plural) are commanded to repent and after this about-turn change of heart and life, each is called upon to be baptised. It is not the baptism that saves but that salvation takes place in repentance. I know that some of you may object to this position, but there are grammatical and theological reasons for supporting this position. And it is not based on this one verse. I don't have the time to engage in more detailed exegesis to demonstrate that the Nicene Creed at this point is not demonstrating an evangelical position. It is supporting a sacramental position that was alive and well in the fourth century when the Nicene Creed was formulated.

Oz

 

[ewq1938]

ewq,


This argument about Job's friends as it relates to inspiration makes no sense and has nothing to do with how the reliability and inspiration of the Bible is understood.

I never spoke about Job's friends.

Yes, lets drop this and go back to the OP, if anyone still wants to discuss it. Otherwise I will just lock this topic.

Ok.

 

[Wormwood]

Oz,

Thank you for your reply. Yes, I believe this, and other verses clearly teach that baptism is the moment in which God's grace of forgiveness, cleansing, receiving the Holy Spirit, etc. takes place. I will try to address the Greek as I see in in response to what you have written:

First, the shift from plural to singular is irrelevant in my opinion. The real focus is the command to the crowd to repent along with the passive verb indicating that each individual should "be baptized." The clear indication here is that the required response included the command to repent and submit oneself to baptism. These verb forms do nothing to change the meaning of eis or the context in which it is used.

Now, considering the word eis. As you know, the overwhelming sense of eis in the NT refers to motion toward something with the connotation of purpose or goal. It is true that eis can be used in the sense of "relation to" or "because of" but this is not common. In fact, in my cursory overview of the word, I would say that approximately 1300x out of the approximately 1600x the word is used it carries a causal meaning with reference to motion toward or the purpose of something (perhaps even more than this).

Thus, one would only use a less likely rendering of this word if the context demands it. However, not only do we not see the context demanding it, we see the context forcing us to see this word as causal. In the context, we see the audience asking, "What shall we do?" Clearly, they are concerned about this sin and guilt of crucifying the Christ and are want to know what they should do to rid themselves of this guilt. The audience is asking what they must do and Peter is explaining what they must do and why. They must repent and be baptized so that their sins can be forgiven and that they might receive the Holy Spirit.

In fact, the Greek clearly links both repentance and baptism in this structure with the conjunctive, kai. Repentance and baptism are linked here and to argue that eis is not causal, by necessity, means that one must see both repentance and baptism as the result of, and not for the purpose of forgiveness. Thus, repentance must be seen as totally unnecessary with this approach and something done only because one has already been forgiven rather than the appropriate response to receive forgiveness. Yet, this concept makes no sense theologically or contexutally. Clearly, Jesus did not call people to repent because they were already part of the Kingdom, nor is Peter commanding them to repent because they are already forgiven.

I think if a theologian is honest with himself/herself they must conclude that the only reason to interpret eis as "because of" is due to a predetermined theological view that refuses to see baptism as linked with forgiveness. It is overwhelmingly evident in the context that the audience is asking how to respond and Peter is both informing them and explaining the results of such a response. He is not telling them they have already been forgiven and repentance and baptism are good ideas but unrelated to forgiveness or the Holy Spirit. Such a reading simply turns the entire context on its head and makes the entire passage nonsensical and meaningless. There is simply no way the audience would hear these words and conclude that repentance and baptism were unnecessary.

Furthermore, we seen in about a dozen other passages in the New Testament this exact same correlation where baptism is not viewed as the result of transformation, but the point of transformation. Paul portrays baptism as the point in which one is crucified with Christ and the point at which one is clothed with Christ. Never is the indication given in his writing that baptism is merely the result of being clothed, cleansed or saved. This is a later theological development created by Zwingli that was unknown to the church in her 1500 year history prior to his life.

I think this scholars comments are on target and worth consideration:

Even if the so-called “causal” meaning of eis were not in doubt on lexicographical grounds, it would surely be excluded in Acts 2:38 by the context itself. “Be baptized because your sins have been forgiven” is the exact opposite of what would be expected and required in the situation. The whole point is that the Jews’ sins are not forgiven, and they are asking what to do to receive such forgiveness.
The bottom line is that the only meaning of eis that is consistent with the context of Acts 2:38 is its most common meaning of “motion toward,” specifically the purposive meaning of “unto” or “for the purpose of.” The Greek construction is exactly the same as Jesus’ statement in Matthew 26:28, that he shed his blood “for [eis] forgiveness of sins,” namely, for the purpose of bringing about forgiveness. Thus we must conclude that Peter is saying in Acts 2:38 that part of what a sinner must do to bring about forgiveness of his sins is be baptized.


Jack Cottrell, Baptism: A Biblical Study (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company, 1989), 57.

 

[Joyful]

So are you only concerned with the RED words in your Bible? There is a lot more to the Bible than Jesus' RED words.
My point was Jesus didn't teach everything to everyone, but His word does.
Do you KNOW what Paul did in Acts 19?

What is your point?

 

[Butch5]

Wormwood,

[SIZE=large]What have we concluded about whether this statement from the Nicene Creed is Christian or not? 'I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins'.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=large]As has been raised, Acts 2:38 states:[/SIZE]

• 
  [SIZE=large]'[/SIZE]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' (NIV).
  
• 
  'Peter replied, "Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit' (NLT).
  
• 
  'And Peter said to them, “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.' (ESV).
  

Is this verse teaching that one needs to be baptized to experience forgiveness of sins, and so agree with the Nicene Creed?
A couple points of Greek grammar may open this verse up for us:

1. 
   'Repent' is an aorist (point action), imperative (command) plural. It is a command to the group to repent. The plural emphasis is important. To repent refers to a change of mind and life. Do a u-turn in life and do it immediately (aorist).
   
2. 
   But then the writer changes to the singular from the plural. This is not made evident in the English translations. The singular is 'be baptized each (singular) of you'.
   
3. 
   eis aphesin (to forgiveness) twn hamartwn humwn (of sins of you). The controversy that has happened over hundreds of years relates to the meaning of this phrase 'to/for forgiveness of your sins'. The conclusions have generally amounted to either support for (a) sacramental theology - baptism as a sacrament and necessary for salvation, or ( B) evangelical theology where baptism confirms repentance and is not a requirement for a salvation.
   

I have found A T Robertson's summary of the issues to be wise words:

The change from plural to singular in Acts 2;38 is a strong indicator that Robertson's exegesis has support where people (plural) are commanded to repent and after this about-turn change of heart and life, each is called upon to be baptised. It is not the baptism that saves but that salvation takes place in repentance. I know that some of you may object to this position, but there are grammatical and theological reasons for supporting this position. And it is not based on this one verse. I don't have the time to engage in more detailed exegesis to demonstrate that the Nicene Creed at this point is not demonstrating an evangelical position. It is supporting a sacramental position that was alive and well in the fourth century when the Nicene Creed was formulated.

Oz

Oz,

Robersons opinion on that passage has be refuted by Scholars. Even Daniel Wallace who is a Calvinist has said Robertson's position on this is wrong. He's actually going against his own theology on this position. However the real evidence in my opinion against Robertson's interpretation is the historical evidence. Up until around the Reformation the church has always understood the necessity of baptism. If you read the early writers it's clear that they saw the necessity of baptism and if anyone understood Koine Greek with was them, they spoke it. I'm going to take the eyewitness accounts of hundreds over the word of a theologian 1800 years later. Plus we have Scripture that makes it clear that baptism is necessary. Even Luther who started the Reformation held to the necessity of baptism.