Modernized Nicene Creed.

[37818]

The following is the common modernized edition of the Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

versus
The following is a Biblicized version of the modernized Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally the only Son of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, not begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

Task - if there is anything wrong? What is not Biblical about either? Why? Cite, and give Scripture.

[RBerman]

It might have helped if you had somehow highlighted the difference for us. Or simply just asked: "Is it Biblical to speak of the Son as being begotten of the Father?" Since you call the second version (the one that denies "begotten" language) the "Biblicized" form, apparently you think it's the correct (Biblical) form. So, do you think it's wrong to speak of Son as begotten? If so, why?

[apostoli]

Task - if there is anything wrong? What is not Biblical about either? Why? Cite, and give Scripture.

Both the "modernised" creeds you presented fail the test of Chistian Orthodoxy as they fail to maintain the distinction between the Father and the son.

The purpose of the Nicene Creed is to defend against Sabellianism (one individual with three modes of existence) and Arianism (three gods). The phrase "of one Being with the Father" does not communicate what homoousia (consubstantiality) means, the phrase "one in being with the Father" would be more appropriate, though the use of the word "being" is ambiguious in modern English. If the creed needs to be "modernised" then citation of the meaning of John 1:1c would be the most appropriate = "what God was and continues to be, the Logos/Son was and continues to be" (cp. NEB's rendering).

The idea that the Son in his pre-existence was "not begotten" would have been anathema to all the participants at Nicea and later councils! Jesus is depicted in the scriptures as Son in his pre-existence and says of himself that he did not come of his own accord but was sent (John 8:42). We also learn from A.John that God so loved the world that he sent his only Son. This must point to the Son being son in his pre-existence, and as 99% of Christianity has affirmed in writing even in modern times, though the Son was not made/created the Father is his source and cause. For those that have an adversion to the word "begotten", I guess the heretical phrase "not begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father" might be rephrased as "not made from nothing as the heavens and earth, but in eternity caused by the Father to be an exact replica of himself (cp Heb 1:3)".

[Rdr. Arsenios]

The whole idea of a modern "VERSION" of the Creed errs on its face, unless it has its origin in the same process by which the first came to be, which is an Ecumenical Church Council... You will do better to look at a modern TRANSLATION... I mean, we live in a free country, and you are free to think whatever you like and write it down, but giving another version is a re-write, and if you are going to re-write the Creed as the Creed, you need to do so from within the Church that wrote it and prays it every day...

If YOU want to re-write it, then you can proclaim YOUR rewrite of the Creed, but this "VERSION" business is parasitic at best - Why not just proclaim your own personal Christian and theological thoughts? Maybe a "Manifesto of Faith" or some such...??

Arsenios

[apostoli]

Something I rarely do is scroll to the bottom of the page and follow the similiar thread links...but this time I did and discovered 37818 has been pushing his particular barrow since 2007...this is what he had to say...

The Nicene Creed came as a responce to Arius his heresy. What is not commonly understood is the heresy of Arius is based on the very heresy found in the Nicene Creed.

Now as a Christian, I believe in one God the Father. And in the three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that they are the one and the same God. I in fact, believe in the eternal Sonship of the Son. That the Son is the only-begotten Son of God. That He has always been the Son, and never became the Son. I say this so you have a clue as to where I am coming from. And that I agree with most of the Nicene Creed, in that it teaches much of the same that I believe as a Christian.

Now here is what the Nicene Creed says that is not biblical, ". . . begotten of the Father before all worlds [ages/time.]"

It should be noted the error of Arius, what is attributed to him, ". . .the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing."

As you can see the error of Arius is rooted in the error " . . . begotten of the Father before all time" interpretation.

The problem is the non-bibilical use of the term "begotten." The biblical use of the term refers to the resurrection of Chirst (Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33) And the resurrection declares Christ's Sonship (Romans 1:4.) The biblcial use of the term "begotten" has nothing to do with the Son becoming the Son.

So the the modern heresy of the Nicene Creed is where ever it is used as a standard for fellowship and is so placed above the written word of God. Otherwise the idea of the Son being "eternally begotten" is a secondary issue and not in any way a matter of salvation or biblical truth. It is an interpretation. One which I do not hold. Since I believe the Son of God has always been the Son even as the Son has always been God with His Father - hence He is the "only-begotten," that is, "uniquely-begotten" Son of God - having no beginning, as the Son of God neither begotten nor made.

Athanasius in his 4th discourse to the Arians did not deny that the Son had origination and (to paraphrase) put it this way: the Son was begotten in eternity, by definition there is no time in eternity, therefore you cannot say there was when the Son was not...The NT witness is that in his pre-existence, Jesus was Son to the Father - sons don't come out of thin air, nor do they precede or substantially exist before their begettal - thats why they are called sons...Athanasuis' argument was that as God's wisdom and power the Son was always in the Father in potentiality...so there was not, when he was not...

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Something I rarely do is scroll to the bottom of the page and follow the similiar thread links...but this time I did and discovered 37818 has been pushing his particular barrow since 2007...this is what he had to say...



Athanasius in his 4th discourse to the Arians did not deny that the Son had origination and (to paraphrase) put it this way: the Son was begotten in eternity, by definition there is no time in eternity, therefore you cannot say there was when the Son was not...The NT witness is that in his pre-existence, Jesus was Son to the Father - sons don't come out of thin air, nor do they precede or substantially exist before their begettal - thats why they are called sons...Athanasuis' argument was that as God's wisdom and power the Son was always in the Father in potentiality...so there was not, when he was not...

Nice work... Thank-you...

It is often hard to let go of a line of thought...

I wonder if he has actually read: "ON THE INCARNATION"... Fr. Joseph read it with a yellow highlighter for the important passages, and ended up with a solid yellow text... :-) He has read it at least 5 or 6 times, and very likely many more than that... This is an illumined elder and Father of the Church, writing as a young man, still a Deacon, and his words carried all the Bishops...

Arsenios

[apostoli]

Hi 37818,

In the "The heresy of the Nicene Creed" thread I notice you continually demand that "The biblical usage of 'begotten' in regards to God's Son refers to Christ's resurrection (Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33.)". It seems you aren't aware that Psalm 2:7 teaches about the adoption of David by God when David was set upon the throne. The same applies to Acts 13:33, so what you are in fact advocating is adoptionism, and are inadvertantly denying the true sonship of Jesus in his pre-existence. To understand whats being said in the passages you appeal to we need to have an insight on ancient custom - for instance: contemplate Isaac's ascendency, though Abraham's natural son he did not have the birthright to rule over Abraham's household, but he did attain it...so Isaac became Abraham's firstborn son...

A.John places particular emphasis on the onl begotten Son having been sent, became flesh and was there on known to men as Jesus. So the biblical evidence is that Jesus was Son long before his resurrection or incarnation. In fact, in Matthew, God declared twice "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased" (Mt 3:17; 17:5).

[37818]

It seems you aren't aware that Psalm 2:7 teaches about the adoption of David by God when David was set upon the throne. The same applies to Acts 13:33, so what you are in fact advocating is adoptionism, and are inadvertantly denying the true sonship of Jesus in his pre-existence.

The Psalm states that the one being "begotten" is already a son. "Thou art my Son." It is the Holy Spirit who applies this Psalm to Jesus and His bodily resurrection.

Acts 13:33,

. . . that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

So the Apostle Paul explains,

Romans 1:4,

. . . who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord,

[apostoli]

The Psalm states that the one being "begotten" is already a son. "Thou art my Son." It is the Holy Spirit who applies this Psalm to Jesus and His bodily resurrection.

Acts 13:33,

. . . that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

So the Apostle Paul explains,

Romans 1:4,

. . . who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord,

What you don't seem to realise is that you are inadvertantly advocating adoptionism. David was not the natural offspring of God but a creation of God. The Son (Jesus in his pre-existence) is thought of as being the natural offspring of God, that is why it is said in the Nicea Creed that they are homoousia, and such can only be so if he was 'begotten not made'. I was reading recently that the Greek word used in the creed and translated "made" has the connotation of an artist/craftsman at work, shaping and moulding...

Concerning Psalms 2:7 I'll cite Jamieson, Fausset & Brown's commentary...

7. The king thus constituted declares the fundamental law of His kingdom, in the avowal of His Sonship, a relation involving His universal dominion.

this day have I begotten thee--as 2Sa 7:14 , "he shall be My son," is a solemn recognition of this relation. The interpretation of this passage to describe the inauguration of Christ as Mediatorial King, by no means impugns the Eternal Sonship of His divine nature. In Act 13:33 , Paul's quotation does not imply an application of this passage to the resurrection; for "raised up" in Act 13:32 is used as in Act 2:30 3:22 , &c., to denote bringing Him into being as a man; and not that of resurrection, which it has only when, as in Act 2:34 , allusion is made to His death ( Rom 1:4 ). That passage says He was declared as to His divine nature to be the Son of God, by the resurrection, and only teaches that that event manifested a truth already existing. A similar recognition of His Sonship is introduced in Hbr 5:5 , by these ends, and by others in Mat 3:17 17:5 .

[apostoli]

Nice work... Thank-you...

It is often hard to let go of a line of thought...

I wonder if he has actually read: "ON THE INCARNATION"... Fr. Joseph read it with a yellow highlighter for the important passages, and ended up with a solid yellow text... :-) He has read it at least 5 or 6 times, and very likely many more than that... This is an illumined elder and Father of the Church, writing as a young man, still a Deacon, and his words carried all the Bishops...

Arsenios

Thanks Arsenios.

If anyone is interested in having a read of Athanasius' "ON THE INCARNATION", it is available online - here is a link...
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/athanasius/...ation.toc.html

[37818]

In Act 13:33 , Paul's quotation does not imply an application of this passage to the resurrection; for "raised up" in Act 13:32 is used as in Act 2:30 3:22 , &c., to denote bringing Him into being as a man; and not that of resurrection, which it has only when, as in Act 2:34 , allusion is made to His death ( Rom 1:4 ). That passage says He was declared as to His divine nature to be the Son of God, by the resurrection, and only teaches that that event manifested a truth already existing. A similar recognition of His Sonship is introduced in Hbr 5:5 , by these ends, and by others in Mat 3:17 17:5 .

Then what do you understand the apostle's reason to cite Psalm 2?

Acts 13:33-34,

. . . that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he hath spoken on this wise, I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.

Some translators think that it refers to Jesus the Son of God as Paul cited this Psalm about David.

[RBerman]

Psalm 2 in its OT setting is about the Davidic king. The NT uses it as evidence in several places that Jesus is the new Davidic king, the long-awaited Messiah. But the NT's view of "son of God" is by no means limited to the way it's used in Psalm 2.

[apostoli]

Some translators think that [Acts 13:33-34] refers to Jesus the Son of God as Paul cited this Psalm about David.

In my experience all commentators recognise that Psalms 2 is being applied to Jesus as the Christ at Acts 13:33! (As is Ps 16:10 & Is 55:3 at Acts 13:34-37)

Then what do you understand the apostle's reason to cite Psalm 2?

Psalms 2 is about David's ascendency to the throne, likewise Jesus as the risen Christ, the awaited Messiah ascends to the throne of David as was promised in the prophets. See Acts 13:32-33 "And we declare to you glad tidings-- that promise which was made to the fathers. God has fulfilled..."

This day have I begotten you - Barnes' commentary suggests that "begotten" is used in a figurative sense and gives numerous examples from scripture. Clarke's commentary notes "It has been disputed whether this text should be understood of the incarnation or of the resurrection of our Lord." Personally, I hold that it refers to the resurrection and have mixed feelings about Barnes' ascertain. In the case of Psalms 2:7, I see it as a metaphor of David's rebirth, his transition to king = "Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion" (vs6). In Jesus' case I take it more metaphysically - in the resurrection Jesus is reborn transitioning from the suffering servant to the King with all power.

Acts 13:33-34,

. . . that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he hath spoken on this wise, I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.

Imo, we have to go back to vs29 to get A.Paul's context "Now when they [the Jews] had fulfilled all that was written concerning Him [the Messiah], they took [Him] down from the tree and laid [Him] in a tomb. But God raised Him from the dead. He was seen for many days by those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are His witnesses to the people. And we declare to you glad tidings--that promise which was made to the fathers. God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus."

Imo, the winesses of Acts 13 and 2 are very similar, so I hold that Acts 13:29-37 must be understood in the same way as Acts 2:30-32 "Therefore, [David] being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne..." The words in bold are variously rendered but all commentators I've encountered agree that the text is to be understood that God promised David that one of his descendents would be the Messiah and God would place him upon David's throne for ever and ever (=raise him up) . vs31-32 has the accomplished through the Messiah's death and resurrection.