(In response to a suggestion from a commenter, I am going to be publishing a chapter-by-chapter review of a book called The Creed: What Christians Believe and Why It Matters.)
The word “creed” comes from credo or “I believe”. What do Christians believe? What is the unifying belief system of our universal Church? Our emphasis on orthodoxy over orthopraxy is, after all, our most unique theological aspect. Why do we need a creed at all? Can’t we each just read the Bible for ourselves, without the theological and political straitjacket of a uniform creed? Why did the Apostle’s Creed, and then the Nicene Creed, ever come into being, in the first place?
In the beginning
The Nicene Creed is essentially Christianity’s expansion of the Jewish Shema, “Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one.” So, the recitation of a creed was already common practice among the Jews, and Christians carried this into their new Church.
This expansion is begun in the New Testament, especially in the following passages:
1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (ESV)
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
2 Corinthians 13:14 (ESV)
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
The first passage is significant in its recitation of Jesus’ life as an actual human being, the second the triune nature of our Godhead. Both of these are vital passages because the denial of the Trinity and the human/deity Jesus were the source of numerous heresies (including Gnosticism and Arianism), which was countered by the development of various creeds.
The Early Church later came up with popularizations of the following creeds:
Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly begotten of God and of the Virgin, but not after the same manner. For indeed God and man are not the same. He truly assumed a body; for “the Word was made flesh,” and lived upon earth without sin. For says He, “Which of you convicteth me of sin?” He did in reality both eat and drink. He was crucified and died under Pontius Pilate. He really, and not merely in appearance, was crucified, and died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth… He descended, indeed, into Hades alone, but He arose accompanied by a multitude; and rent asunder that means of separation which had existed from the beginning of the world, and cast down its partition-wall. He also rose again in three days, the Father raising Him up; and after spending forty days with the apostles, He was received up to the Father, and “sat down at His right hand, expecting till His enemies are placed under His feet.
They are the symbol of our faith in the Lord of the Christians (in the great christendom), even in the Father, the Lord Almighty, and in Jesus Christ our redeemer, in the Holy Ghost the comforter, in the holy church, and in the remission of sins.
These things did our Lord and Saviour reveal unto us and teach us. And we do even as he, that ye may become partakers in the grace of our Lord and in our ministry and our giving of thanks (glory), and think upon life eternal. Be ye steadfast and waver not in the knowledge and confidence of our Lord Jesus Christ, and he will have mercy on you and save you everlastingly, world without end.
“That according to which we worship the God of the Christians, whom we reckon to be one from the beginning, the maker and fashioner of the whole creation, visible and invisible; and the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who had also been preached beforehand by the prophets as about to be present with the race of men, the herald of salvation and teacher of good disciples.
The elders of the church of Smyma:
We too know in truth one God; we know Christ; we know that the Son suffered even as He suffered, and died even as He died, and rose again on the third day, and is at the right hand of the Father, and comes to judge the living and the dead. And these things which we have learned we allege.
The Apostle’s Creed
These various creeds eventually spawned a more formal version, called the Apostle’s Creed, which is still used in churches today. The earliest version is from Tertullian:
The rule of faith, indeed, is altogether one, alone immoveable and irreformable; the rule, to wit, of believing in one only God omnipotent, the Creator of the universe, and His Son Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, raised again the third day from the dead, received in the heavens, sitting now at the right (hand) of the Father, destined to come to judge quick and dead through the resurrection of the flesh as well (as of the spirit).
which was followed by the baptismal form in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus:
“Do you believe in God the Father Almighty?”
“Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and died, and rose on the third day living from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Father, the one coming to judge the living and the dead?”
“Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the Holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh?”
and eventually merged to form the modern Apostle’s Creed:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Maker of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy catholic church;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.Amen.
The ecumenical council of Nicea
Later, in response to the rise of the heresies of Arius, an ecumenical eastern council formed to create a binding creed, as summoned by the emperor Constantinople. Constantine had a vision of a unified Roman Empire, and he wished to use a unified Christian Church as the glue to hold that empire together (per Eusebius).
The first creed they produced is noticeably political in tone. Not only is the ending a clear warning against heresy, but the beginning is a “we” rather than the traditional “I”. This was a true declaration of faith:
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost.
Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made out of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.
The second, and final, creed — the one we now know as the Nicene Creed, but which was written in Constantinople under the emperor Theodosius I, and then added to again in Toledo in 589 AD — is
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:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
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 and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He 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. Amen.
Amen. The end.
Alte
October 5, 2011
TL;DR? LOL
It’s interesting though, isn’t it?
Will S.
October 5, 2011
I think it’s interesting, but then, we Reformed are theology geeks.
joanna
October 5, 2011
I think it’s interesting. I like reciting these creeds with fellow believers, but I know many people that find it creepy “group-think”-type stuff. If there is nothing theologically unsound about them, I don’t see what the problem is. I think it’s good to recognize, verbally, as a congregation, what exactly it is that we believe.
John
October 5, 2011
“Jewish Shema?” Pray tell…
“It would be a mistake to assume that our roots are of the Israelites of the Old Testament, but, rather, our roots are in Phariseeism.” – 1905 Jewish Encyclopedia
Perhaps if you could find a copy of the 1984 “Jewish Almanac” and carefully examine in their own words the phraseology in the chapter titled “Identity” they utilized to describe themselves, the general and widespread error of linking the biblical Israelites with both New Testament period and today’s Judaists would be more easily avoided. It is in fact, error. Even the avowed and enthusiastic supporter of Zionism, historian Arthur Koestler, who later rejected the concept entirely, wrote in his 1976 book “The Thirteenth Tribe”, that not only are the present-day Judaists not descendants of “Biblical Israel” and not even Semites, but are in fact descended from a Turko-Mongol tribe formerly located in the Central Asian Steppes, were polytheistic animists, and adopted “Judaism” in the A.D. 700′s as a political expedient to counter the rise of European Christendom and Islam. Properly, they were known as “Khazars.”
The Old Testament is from the Israelites and from God, with the first five books written by Moses, not from the Judaist Pharisees. It was the Israelites to whom the Hebrew language belonged. The Babylonian Pharisees spoke Greek, Latin and Aramaic, eventually stealing the Hebrew language from the Israelites and calling it their own. Perhaps John 8:44 would be helpful here as he quotes the relevant part of a discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees – “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45“But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me. 46“Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? 47“He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.”
Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 can also be quite instructive on this question and the general confusion which surrounds it. From the Douay-Rheims translation:
Rev. 2:9 – “I know thy tribulation and thy poverty, but thou art rich: and thou art blasphemed by them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.”
Rev. 3:9 – “Behold, I will bring of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie. Behold, I will make them to come and adore before thy feet. And they shall know that I have loved thee.”
We can either erroneously believe both the congenital liars and the father of lies, or we can wisely choose to believe the Lord Jesus Christ on this matter. In the writings they share with themselves (see above) they admit the are not Biblical Israelites, yet shrewdly portray to the “Goyim” (cattle) that they in fact are. Contrary to their lies and deceptions, Judaists are not Israelites, nor were they ever. They are, as our Lord so stated, of the “Synagogue of Satan” and by them, Christianity has been yet again deceived.
Alte
October 5, 2011
Yes, I know that the modern Jews aren’t the same necessarily the same race of people as the Israelites. I meant the Jewish religion, based upon the Torah. The Shema is from the Book of Deuteronomy, which is in the Hebrew Bible, and 1st century Judaism was using the Shema as a creed, and the Christians adopted the practice from them, as many Christians were Jewish converts.
Creeds are not a standard part of most religions because they are not so focused on orthodoxy (as opposed to orthopraxy) as Christians are. Note also that the Jewish creed is very short and simple, whereas the Christian one — even at the very beginning — was much more detailed and definite. This is another example of the Christian emphasis on orthodoxy.
the cottage child
October 5, 2011
Isn’t the Mass language going to revert to “I” believe? It’s said in unison, but it’s intended as an individual declaration of faith, I thought.
Alte
October 5, 2011
Yes, it’s reverting back to “I”: http://old.usccb.org/romanmissal/samples-people.shtml
Learner
October 5, 2011
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Oops, you made a typo, it is “who proceeds from the Father”. Gotta represent for the Orthodox!
Learner
October 5, 2011
Also, this is a really cool topic for discussion!
Alte
October 5, 2011
Ha ha. Yes, the different churches do have slightly different versions of the Creed, which reflect their differing theologies. Here’s the one from the new Catholic missal:
It is a cool topic. Each chapter is interesting and will make for a good post and discussion. All of us theology-geeks can get a weekly fix, in addition to the Bible readings.
the cottage child
October 5, 2011
It’s the Anglican fundie in me, but I’ll miss “seen and unseen”.
Alte
October 5, 2011
The older version was more poetic, the new one more literal.
the cottage child
October 5, 2011
true God from true God,
begotten, not made
love the reiteration element in the Creeds
consubstantial with the Father;
I LOVE this – I’m gonna cry the first few times, I know it.
terri
October 5, 2011
I actually like this post, Alte. I didn’t think it was too long at all. I just really like to mull over theological posts before I throw my two cents in. And when I do I can go on forever. My comments on the Job post are an example, LOL.
Nursing sick hubby today. More tomorrow morning when I ponder some more.
Ingemar
October 5, 2011
*Wonders when Brendan will chime in about the “F-word”*
Svar
October 5, 2011
“We can either erroneously believe both the congenital liars and the father of lies, or we can wisely choose to believe the Lord Jesus Christ on this matter. In the writings they share with themselves (see above) they admit the are not Biblical Israelites, yet shrewdly portray to the “Goyim” (cattle) that they in fact are. Contrary to their lies and deceptions, Judaists are not Israelites, nor were they ever. They are, as our Lord so stated, of the “Synagogue of Satan” and by them, Christianity has been yet again deceived.”
Thank you, John. Little bit more realism and little bit less “stooooop blaaaaaaming the Joos”. Thank you, once again.
You do know why exactly the Romans would persecute and kill the early Christians right? Not because the Romans were some evil, eeeeevuhl, people(they were actually one of the most noblest race of men) but because das Juden Pharisees told them that Christians committing human sacrifice and had orgies(surprise, surprise. Jews lying). The Romans banned Druidism for the former reason and the Dionysian Cult for the latter one. No wonder why they hated the early Christians; they didn’t know better.
Will S.
October 5, 2011
@ Svar: Of course, since we symbolically eat Christ’s flesh in Communion (Lord’s Supper or Eucharist), the cannibalism charge isn’t hard to understand. It’s wrong, but one can understand the incomprehension / disgust of both the Jews and the pagani (“What? They eat their religion’s founder’s flesh?”).
Svar
October 5, 2011
Well, Will, how do you explain the human sacrifice and orgy charges as anything other than blatant lies?
The Eastern Euro ones are the worst: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/the-assassination-of-pyotr-arkadievich-stolypin/
Poor Pyotr Arkadievich Stolypin was an advocate of the Jews. Look what happened to him. I’m sure you’ve read the three-piece article by Paul Gottfried, Srdja Trifkovic, and Taki Theoracoupolos about anti-Semitism as well.
As an aside: the only author that I(and I think Bonald as well) like on Alternative Right is basically Andy Nowicki, who’s a Catholic-a real one that writes for the New Oxford Review. The rest of them are strange. Well, I like Scott Locklin, Srdja Trifkovic, and Steve Sailer as well.
Btw, Wikipedia calls Alternative Right a paleoconservative magazine, LOL. The people at Wikipedia are morons. Chronicles and AmConMag(pre-Rob Unz) are paleocon mags. Alternative Right is a mishmash of several (non-Neo Con)right-wing oriented voices.
Svar
October 5, 2011
I actually like Paul Gottfried, Derek Turner, and Peter Brimelow(founder of VDare) as well; they’re paleocons. It’s the neo-pagans, nihilists, and WNs that I’m not too fond of.
Will S.
October 5, 2011
@ Svar: Oh, of course, Christ’s enemies distorted and smeared us; always have, always will. And by Christ’s enemies, I naturally include those who didn’t come into the New Covenant; mistakenly, hostilely thinking the Old one is still in place.
Yes, I like Paul Gottfried, too; I didn’t know Derek Turner and Peter Brimelow were of The Tribe; I like them, too, anyway.
Will S.
October 5, 2011
The Wikipedians are clueless about those they loathe.
Svar
October 5, 2011
The things I like about Alternative Right is the anti-feminism, the criticism of the Jews, the agrarians, the right-wing anti-capitalists, and the right-wing conservationists/ecologists.
I don’t like the nihilism, pretend-paganism, Material Reductionism, and the WNs. Remember what happened when Scott Locklin said that he like Eastern European and Vietnamese women on of his articles?
Strong Man
October 5, 2011
Interesting summary. As far as I know, none of these creeds claim any new revelation from God to develop the beliefs described. How do you justify areas of the creeds like “consubstantial” that clearly depart from the teachings of the Bible, such as John 17?
Also- if by definition based on our earlier conversation about “are Mormons Christians”, a Christian is only someone who believes in The Nicene Creed, what were the followers of Christ called before 300AD? How about other followers of Christ today who strive for a more Biblically-based, as opposed to a creed-based, understanding of God?
Perhaps the creeds could be interpreted to be compatible with the Bible, but they certainly do not add clarity. If they add new information that is not already in the Bible, did that new information come from God? If so, how?
Alte
October 5, 2011
Generally, the Creed is seen — by those churches who adhere to it — as a marker of orthodoxy. So those who do not adhere to the Creed and who do not believe as the Creed says are, at most, unorthodox. You don’t have to say the Creed to believe that what it says is correct, and the latter is the marker of orthodoxy.
Don’t have time to answer the rest right now, but just wanted to print this Wikepedia definition:
Learner
October 5, 2011
Coming from non-denominational churches most recently I really have come to love chanting the Nicene creed during the Orthodox liturgy. It just gives me such a sense of the ancientness of Christianity to be chanting the same creed (well, 99% the same) other Orthodox have been chanting since the 4th century. What we chant is very similar to what Alte copied from the Catholic missal, just the filioque and minor non-substantial differences are there:
I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made:
Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man.
And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again according to the scriptures.
He ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of the Father;
And he will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets;
And I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sin.
I look for the resurrection of the dead. And the life of the world to come. Amen.
In a different EOC church I attended that was Carpatho-Ruthenian we said “consubstantial” rather than “one essence”.
The best part is when we chant “and suffered and was buried;” it is all drawn out and mournful. But then we come back with ” and the third day He rose again according to the scriptures.” in a more lively tone
Learner
October 5, 2011
Strongman,
Also- if by definition based on our earlier conversation about “are Mormons Christians”, a Christian is only someone who believes in The Nicene Creed, what were the followers of Christ called before 300AD? How about other followers of Christ today who strive for a more Biblically-based, as opposed to a creed-based, understanding of God?
The Church that established the Nicene creed is the same church that established the cannon of scripture in the 4th century. How is it that they developed a creed that contradicted the scriptures they codified into cannon? Is it more likely they were confused or that people over a thousand years later were confused?
For Orthodox (and Catholic I believe-please correct me if needed) the scriptures are a part of the Church, they came through the Church, not the other way around.
Alte
October 5, 2011
Yes, the scriptures are part of the Magesterium, which has an oral and a written tradition. The Bible is an especially important part of the Magesterium (the Holy Book), but much of the NT was written decades or more after the Church had been founded and began evangelizing. So it is obvious that the Church is not a product of the Bible, but the Bible a product of the Church.
The Church was reciting creeds before the NT was written, so a creed-based tradition is part of the Magesterium, and rejecting the creed is going against the Early Church tradition. Many of the people were illiterate, after all, and Bibles were sometimes hard to come by. Creeds gave everyone a single work to recite, to keep the Church connected across time and space, even if they did not possess a Bible or the other written works. It is truly a beautiful thing.
Learner
October 5, 2011
what reason would you give greater weight to the Creeds than to the New Testament?
I wouldn’t give them any. I would suggest that their “disagreement” was a product of a faulty interpretation of scripture. Then I would ask my boyfriend for help because he has a much better grasp on this than I do!
Learner
October 5, 2011
The answer is that there was heresy in the church and the councils and creeds rooted out that heresy. Constantine did not want there to be disunity but the Church came together in the councils to defeat heresy and at nicea it was the Aryan heresy that was in play. There was always truth and heresy. Not a splintered church. Truth and heresy.
Also, there is no contradiction between the creed and John 17.
Chris
October 5, 2011
There is no difference in the words I can find between Catholic and Protestant Churches. See http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/nicene.htm
That does not stop the fighting… in the West and East. The Protestants initially were trying to reform the Western Church (and the Renaissance popes from Borgia (Alexander VI) on needed reforming) and thus the creeds did not change… the theology around words such as Catholic did. Interestingly ,the RC now has moved to a very similar position to the reformed one.
So some points. The Council of Nicaea confirmed a lot of things that were already fairly established. For instance Peter told people to read Paul’s letters.
The need for orthodoxy was driven by the issue of the trinity, which was driving the Greeks crazy. (The issue of Jesus being the Messiah instead of some warrior who drove the Romans out drove the Jews crazy).
Alte, we need to go through this line by line… There is much to consider.
Chris
October 5, 2011
The Veteran at No Minister had this to say today…
We do not want to descend into the sectarianism of that time. Link is http://nominister.blogspot.com/2011/10/on-hokinui-and-other-things.html
Alte
October 5, 2011
Chris,
This is only the first of nine chapters. Don’t worry! There’ll be eight more posts on the Creed. This post is just about the history of the Creed, not the contents.
Learner
October 5, 2011
Interestingly ,the RC now has moved to a very similar position to the reformed one.
Chris,
What are you referring to?
Learner
October 8, 2011
Strongman,
You are reading John 17 as though it means that the kind and form of union between believers is the same as the kind and form of union between the divine persons. This is fallacious because it ignores the difference between the created and the uncreated. In other words, we are made one in Christ through grace (John 17:22-23) while the oneness between the Father and Son comes from their pre-eternal relationship as uncreated God with a common essence/substance. Suggesting the relationship between Christ and the Father is the same as the relationship between Christians is sliding toward the heresy of Arianism. There is nothing new under the sun.
claytonmathieu
October 10, 2011
The relationship between Father/ Son, and Holy Spirit is a mystery which we cannot or even try to understand.