The Nicene Creed is not Christian

[StanJ]

It is non of anyone's business how I learn how to love God and one another.

You should be concerned of your own salvation how you get it.

As for me, I trust Jesus that He taught us how to inherit Gods' kingdom.

Now let me ask you a question. Are Jesus' teachings not good enough for you to learn how to get eternal life?

That's a pretty messed up view seeing as the Bible tells us what it does in 1 Peter 3:15 (NIV)

I don't need to be concerned with my salvation as I am saved.

How exactly did teaches TEACH you?

I already KNOW how to get eternal life, but the question still remains, and for the 3rd time I'll ask, Do you not trust or obey anything in the Bible but Jesus' words?

 

[Joyful]

That's a pretty messed up view seeing as the Bible tells us what it does in 1 Peter 3:15 (NIV)

I don't need to be concerned with my salvation as I am saved.

How exactly did teaches TEACH you?

I already KNOW how to get eternal life, but the question still remains, and for the 3rd time I'll ask, Do you not trust or obey anything in the Bible but Jesus' words?

I cannot teach you how to be faithful to Jesus because it seems Jesus' teachings are not important to you.

If you don't listen to Jesus what makes you think you will listen to anyone who preaches to be obedient to Jesus?

My point is Jesus is the Lord. You better listen to Him if you claim to be a Christian or Jesus' follower.

 

[justaname]

So I think a definition of what it means to be "Christian" is in order here...

 

[ewq1938]

So I think a definition of what it means to be "Christian" is in order here...

I believe a Christian is one who follows Christ as Messiah and Savior who died for our sins, Son of and sent by God the Father.

 

[StanJ]

I cannot teach you how to be faithful to Jesus because it seems Jesus' teachings are not important to you.

If you don't listen to Jesus what makes you think you will listen to anyone who preaches to be obedient to Jesus?

My point is Jesus is the Lord. You better listen to Him if you claim to be a Christian or Jesus' follower.

That is quite a lot prevarication and deflection. Answer my question...do you ONLY accept Jesus words in the Bible?

I haven't seen anyone say they don't accept Jesus' words, especially if they ARE Christian.

We all know Jesus is LORD, but the question still remains...do you ONLY follow Jesus' words or the ENTIRE Bible?

Why is this so hard for you to answer? Do you have something to hide?

 

[StanJ]

So I think a definition of what it means to be "Christian" is in order here...

I think it has already been answered.

 

[Joyful]

So I think a definition of what it means to be "Christian" is in order here...

Isn't that obvious?

Christians are supposed to be Christ's followers.

 

[Joyful]

That is quite a lot prevarication and deflection. Answer my question...do you ONLY accept Jesus words in the Bible?

I haven't seen anyone say they don't accept Jesus' words, especially if they ARE Christian.

We all know Jesus is LORD, but the question still remains...do you ONLY follow Jesus' words or the ENTIRE Bible?

Why is this so hard for you to answer? Do you have something to hide?

It is your problem that you don't honor Jesus' word.

I cannot help you, dear.

 

[OzSpen]

I believe a Christian is one who follows Christ as Messiah and Savior who died for our sins, Son of and sent by God the Father.

There is a prerequisite BEFORE following Christ the Messiah and Saviour: 'For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast ' (Eph 2:8-9 ESV). And the flip side of faith is repentance, 'The Lord is not slow to fulfil his promise as some count slowness, but is patient towards you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance' (2 Pet 3:9 ESV).

So, repentance and faith in Christ alone are what lead to salvation, to becoming a Christian.

 

[ewq1938]

What you have written is part of being a Christian but is not the definition of a Christian in it's purest form. One can become a Christian before having repented yet repentance will come as soon as the person learns and understands it and why it's important.

And here is a perfect example of what I am talking about:

Mat 4:18 And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
Mat 4:19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
Mat 4:20 And they straightway left their nets, and followed him.

No repentance happened, Jesus says to follow him, and they did. They would learn of more in time.

There is a prerequisite BEFORE following Christ the Messiah and Saviour: 'For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast ' (Eph 2:8-9 ESV). And the flip side of faith is repentance, 'The Lord is not slow to fulfil his promise as some count slowness, but is patient towards you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance' (2 Pet 3:9 ESV).

So, repentance and faith in Christ alone are what lead to salvation, to becoming a Christian.

 

[justaname]

I think it has already been answered.

Sorry coming late to the topic...Do you have a post #?

Isn't that obvious?

Christians are supposed to be Christ's followers.

Well actually it isn't. The person responsible for the OP might have a different nuance or some type of cultural significance behind the word "Christian".

Words truly only take on meaning within a context, and we have little context to deal with in the title of the thread.

So then what does it mean to be "Christian"? How is it a creed, that is not a person, can be "Christian"? I do not believe it is in question that those who crafted the creed believed they were "Christian", yet I may be mistaken. We do know both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church held to the creed, as did the reformers. I understand the argument of baptism being a work...yet who has the authority to deem what is or what is not Christian and what it means to be Christian? The JW believe they are the only Christians. Some baptists or SDA's believe they are the only ones able to call themselves Christian.

I am called a Christian by others...am I automatically in? Do I have to be acknowledged by the OPoster? Perhaps the pope can say who is in or out...you see things are not always as clearly defined as we want them to be.

I am under the idea that good communication and argumentation must conform to a clear understanding of ideas. To have clear understanding we must have a clear definition of our terms. For an example in action we need only to refer to posts #369 & #370...

 

[zeke25]

Zeke,

I think you are misunderstanding the position of the church for her first 1500 years of existence. Clearly, all forgiveness comes by the blood of Jesus. However, Jesus' death on the cross didn't automatically save the entire world, correct? I assume you are not a universalist. So how are we to accept and embrace Christ's work for us on the cross that provides forgiveness of sin and eternal life? Belief? Yes, but James tells us "even the demons believe, and shudder." The "faith only" approach is very myopic. Why didnt Jesus tell the rich young ruler, "Just believe in me and you will have eternal life"? God desires a response. Biblically, we see God desiring people to respond to the sacrifice of Jesus through faith, repentance, confessing Christ as Lord and baptism. It is very wrong-headed in my opinion to try to divorce one from the others as if we can decide for ourselves what is significant regardless of what the Scriptures teach.

The early church understood that God called people to a response when they confronted the Gospel. Accepting the blood of Christ included things like repentance, faith, and baptism. We must not say, "one only needs baptism, they dont need faith or the blood." Nor can we say, "One only needs the blood and faith, we dont need to repent and be baptized." Jesus commanded his followers make disciples by baptizing them. This act is not a "work" by which one seeks to merit salvation or else Jesus is undermining his own work on the cross by giving the disciples this command!

I simply contend that we allow the Scripture to be the authority on this matter and not our preconcieved notions of "works" vs "faith." Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize as part of the disciple-making process. So who are we to say baptism isnt important and it has no real value? Especially when we find texts that explicitly teach the opposite!

Perhaps an illustration would be helpful: Imagine a couple is getting married. They both walk down the isle. They both take their oaths to honor and cherish one another in sickness and health. They exchange rings. They say "I do." They are pronounced husband and wife and then they kiss. Your argument (from my perception and that of the early church) is akin to saying, "Which part of this ceremony is insignificant? Can we throw out the rings? Do they have to take an oath? Do they have to say "I do"? Can we forgo the pronouncement and kiss? I mean, after all, we dont want to confuse the ceremony with love! Love is the important thing you know!"

Of course love is the important thing. But the rings, oaths, pronouncement, etc all express that love in a unique way that binds the two together in marriage. So it is with faith, repentance, baptism and confessing Christ. Of course the blood of Jesus is what heals us. Without the blood, none of the rest matters. That doesnt mean faith, repentance, or baptism are insignificant. God has promised that when we believe, repent and are baptized as we confess Christ that he will forgive us, heal us, raise us to live a new life, clothe us with Christ and give us the Holy Spirit. So who are we to say, "Ah, I dont think baptism matters. I dont think repentance matters." Let us allow the Scriptures to guide our actions rather than developing theologies that undermine the Word of God and commands of Christ.

*As for the "value" of the Nicene Creed, I am not a big fan of creeds. However, I do think it reflects the insights of the early church and that those insights are based on a correct understanding of the Scriptures. As a result, I believe the statement has value.

Wormwood,

His Blood provided for the sins of all men to be washed away. But all men are not saved, because they have not responded to this gift of God. God does want us to participate in everything He does. Our salvation is no different. By grace He provided the Sacrifice and our part is to accept that Sacrifice. We must exercise the faith He has given us in order to believe. So, He has given us grace by providing the necessary Sacrificial Lamb of God’s shed Blood to wash our sins away. Then He gives us the faith we have to enable us to believe. Our turn now comes. We exercise that faith and believe, or we turn our backs and walk away. If we choose to believe, then we repent of our sins and the Blood washes those sins away. Believing and repenting is done in the heart and in our spirits. It is not visible to other men, although some will see a change in our countenance. The act of baptism is an outward sign, evidence of an inward change. We are declaring our new man in Christ for all to see. You said all of this in one sentence: “Biblically, we see God desiring people to respond to the sacrifice of Jesus through faith, repentance, confessing Christ as Lord and baptism.”

Then you continued with - We must not say, "one only needs baptism, they dont need faith or the blood." Nor can we say, "One only needs the blood and faith, we dont need to repent and be baptized.”

But the Nicene Creed does exactly what you say “we must not”. It fails to mention the Blood and emphasizes “we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.” And as I have said from the beginning, this notion in the NC leads people astray from the gospel of God. Long arguments, sermons preached, and I imagine books written in defense of the NC. Many such arguments do not even mention the Blood either. I didn’t see it on this thread until I brought it up, many posts into the discussion.

Then you continue: “I simply contend that we allow the Scripture to be the authority on this matter and not our preconcieved notions of "works" vs "faith." Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize as part of the disciple-making process. So who are we to say baptism isnt important and it has no real value? Especially when we find texts that explicitly teach the opposite!” And I agree. But my argument is against the NC because it does not teach what you are teaching right now.

In regards to your example of the marriage, I have not been arguing against baptism. I have been arguing against the NC which makes baptism appear to be the act that forgives sins. When it is not.

Can a person be saved without baptism? Yes, it appears the Scriptures support this position. Acts 19:2 KJV, “He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.” Of course Acts 19 further explains that they had not been baptized in Christ, therefore they immediately did so after being properly instructed, verse 5.

How long had these men been saved before they received this instruction? We do not know. Days, weeks, months, years? How much longer could they have gone? Why not until they expired? Would Christ deny them for not having been water baptized? Not my Heavenly Father.

I don’t think we are far apart regarding baptism. Perhaps you were defending baptism when it appeared to me that you were defending the NC.

Zeke25

 

[Joyful]

Well actually it isn't.

So your question was to OP.

sorry for interruption.

 

[zeke25]

You wrote:

I think you could be missing something important here.

We know this from 2 Cor 7:9-10 (ESV), 'As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting. For you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us.10 For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death'.

John 3:16 (ESV) is clear, 'Whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life'.

This leads Wayne Grudem (1999:309, 310) to define the need for repentance and faith for salvation: 'Repentance is a heartfelt sorrow for sin, a renouncing of it, and a sincere commitment to forsake it and walk in obedience to Christ.... Scripture puts repentance and faith together as different aspects of the one act of coming to Christ for salvation.... Neither repentance nor faith comes first; they must come together. John Murray speaks of "penitent faith" and "believing repentance"' (emphasis in original).

Grudem's summary diagram is that Repentance + Faith --> Conversion (figure 21.1, Grudem 1999:211).

Oz

Works consulted
Grudem, W 1999. Bible Doctrine: Essential teachings of the Christian faith. J Purswell (ed). Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press (published by special arrangement with Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan ).

Hi OzSpen,

I think my post #372 in response to Wormwood can also serve as a response to your remarks. At least it pretty well explains my position.

zeke25


oops, I forgot I already answered you.

 

[zeke25]

Sorry coming late to the topic...Do you have a post #?

Well actually it isn't. The person responsible for the OP might have a different nuance or some type of cultural significance behind the word "Christian".

Words truly only take on meaning within a context, and we have little context to deal with in the title of the thread.

So then what does it mean to be "Christian"? How is it a creed, that is not a person, can be "Christian"? I do not believe it is in question that those who crafted the creed believed they were "Christian", yet I may be mistaken. We do know both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church held to the creed, as did the reformers. I understand the argument of baptism being a work...yet who has the authority to deem what is or what is not Christian and what it means to be Christian? The JW believe they are the only Christians. Some baptists or SDA's believe they are the only ones able to call themselves Christian.

I am called a Christian by others...am I automatically in? Do I have to be acknowledged by the OPoster? Perhaps the pope can say who is in or out...you see things are not always as clearly defined as we want them to be.

I am under the idea that good communication and argumentation must conform to a clear understanding of ideas. To have clear understanding we must have a clear definition of our terms. For an example in action we need only to refer to posts #369 & #370...

justaname,

You're right of course. The term Christian has been used and abused by many a person and denomination for centuries. This is the way of the world, this is the way of the enemy of our souls. The marketplace is so flooded with the label of "Christian" that 99.99% of the people have no clue what a Christian really is.

This is a very dangerous situation. Many who profess to be Christians often commit heinous acts. The news and the world quickly points a finger and says, "Look what those horrible Christians are up to now." This, when a Christian is the last thing they were. Nevertheless, real Christians take the heat.

My employer of 25 years tried to drum me out many times because I was a Christian. I even had a performance evaluation once that started with "We weren't sure you would do a very good job because you are a Christian, but you surprised us and did a good job." Can you imagine someone having the guts to say that but substituting for Christian the word "woman" or "person of color" or etc. It wouldn't happen. But Christians are fair game. I had another supervisor, when I transferred to another state who expressed the same sentiment with disgust and unbelief: "I'm amazed that you describe yourself as a Christian." I could go on and on.

The only one who knows who is really a Christian is another Christian. The Bible commands us to know who our fellow Christians are. Galatians 6:10 is only one example of many "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith." How can we "especially do good" to our fellow Christians except that we know who they are. Therefore, we must have a measuring rod to use to determine who is and who is not a Christian. The world and pretend Christians and those self-deceived into thinking they are Christian cannot make this determination. Only a Christian can, and must.

zeke25

 

[OzSpen]

What you have written is part of being a Christian but is not the definition of a Christian in it's purest form. One can become a Christian before having repented yet repentance will come as soon as the person learns and understands it and why it's important.

And here is a perfect example of what I am talking about:

Mat 4:18 And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
Mat 4:19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
Mat 4:20 And they straightway left their nets, and followed him.

No repentance happened, Jesus says to follow him, and they did. They would learn of more in time.

ewq,

That's not what Paul & Silas told the Philippian jailer: 'And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household"' (Acts 16:31 ESV).

Jesus was adamant about what was needed to prevent a person from perishing:

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:1-5 ESV).

What was the Gospel message that Paul preached about which he told King Agrippa?

Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance (Acts 26:19-20 ESV).

What does John 3:16 (ESV) affirm? 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life'.

Nothing could be clearer than 2 Cor 7:9-10 (ESV), 'As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting. For you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us.10 For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death'.

Thus, to receive salvation - to become a Christian requires faith (believing) in Jesus and repentance that leads to salvation. That's Bible! Thus, 2 Cor 7:9-10 is adamant that repentance precedes salvation and not as you want to put it, i.e. repentance comes AFTER salvation. That is not biblical Christianity.

Oz

 

[ewq1938]

Thus, 2 Cor 7:9-10 is adamant that repentance precedes salvation and not as you want to put it, i.e. repentance comes AFTER salvation. That is not biblical Christianity.

It is biblical Christianity and is why you did not comment on the verses I posted which prove you can follow Christ before repenting. The first Christians experienced this. Not saying others don't repent first or at the same time as accepting Christ but the example provided shows what I have said.

 

[OzSpen]

Sorry coming late to the topic...Do you have a post #?

Well actually it isn't. The person responsible for the OP might have a different nuance or some type of cultural significance behind the word "Christian".

Words truly only take on meaning within a context, and we have little context to deal with in the title of the thread.

So then what does it mean to be "Christian"? How is it a creed, that is not a person, can be "Christian"? I do not believe it is in question that those who crafted the creed believed they were "Christian", yet I may be mistaken. We do know both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church held to the creed, as did the reformers. I understand the argument of baptism being a work...yet who has the authority to deem what is or what is not Christian and what it means to be Christian? The JW believe they are the only Christians. Some baptists or SDA's believe they are the only ones able to call themselves Christian.

I am called a Christian by others...am I automatically in? Do I have to be acknowledged by the OPoster? Perhaps the pope can say who is in or out...you see things are not always as clearly defined as we want them to be.

I am under the idea that good communication and argumentation must conform to a clear understanding of ideas. To have clear understanding we must have a clear definition of our terms. For an example in action we need only to refer to posts #369 & #370...

So are you saying in this life it is not possible for you, me or anyone else to identify who is truly a Christian? I have recently concluded a major PhD dissertation on some of the beliefs of Jesus Seminar advocate, John Dominic Crossan. He says over and over, 'I am a Christian' or speaks 'as a Christian', yet he denies many of the fundamentals of the Christian faith. Are you inferring there is no way to determine if he or any other (including myself) is in or out of the Christian faith?

 

[OzSpen]

It is biblical Christianity and is why you did not comment on the verses I posted which prove you can follow Christ before repenting. The first Christians experienced this. Not saying others don't repent first or at the same time as accepting Christ but the example provided shows what I have said.

This is a false accusation. The reason I did not refer to Matt 4:18-20 (ESV) is because you failed to include the context of Matt 4:17 (ESV): 'From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand"'. Notice the word, 'Repent'. This was the same message that was already preached by John the Baptist according to Matt 3:2 (ESV), 'Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand'.

Because of the message of John the Baptist and Jesus, prior to the calling of the disciples in Matt 4:18-20 (ESV), of the need for repentance, these disciples knew what was involved in, 'Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men'. Repentance was core Christianity in their understanding because that is what John the Baptist and Jesus were preaching.

I urge you not to second guess why I did not address your inappropriate verses, which came without the 'repent' message that was essential to Jesus' message.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Hi OzSpen,

I think my post #372 in response to Wormwood can also serve as a response to your remarks. At least it pretty well explains my position.

zeke25


oops, I forgot I already answered you.

Thanks. I understand and support your position.