Jesus is Lord

[ebia]

The site you link to doesn't even seem to be a christian one (based on a quick glance).  It describes pelagianism, but doesn't even mention the creeds.

Quote:
The (so called) nicene creed is the product of the whole church of the time.
 
So what??

To portray it as the product of the Catholic & Eastern Orthodox churches only is misleading.

There's some variation in translations of it,

This is the reason I would never commit muyself to anyone, without frist reading it.

Ok - a version to work from (happens to be from an Antiochian Orthodox church just because that is one I can find quickly.  It's close enough to any one I've ever heard):
http://www.stnicholas.org.au/FCreed.htm

I don't see that it has much to say about the nature of salvation - non of the ancient creeds tried to contain everything (an impossible task anyway).  It's intended to address (some of) the major heresies of the time.  That doesn't make it pelagian/semi-pelagion or anything else except orthodox in the matters it addresses.

The OT was already an excepted cannon, by the year 95 AD, the NT was in existence before the Roman Catholic church, decided which books were which, officially this was not determined by them uintil ther 16th century.

Maybe you'd like to sort out your punctuation (& spelling - I assume you mean canon), but I'll take a guess at what you mean.

Most (maybe all) of the books in the NT had been written by around AD 95, but the dabate as to which were and were not in the canon went on very much longer.  http://www.churchhistory.net/documents/canon.html

Regardless, the point is that God guided the Church, the body of Christ, over some considerable period, in deciding the canon.  And he guided the same Church in formulating the Nicene Creed.

FWIW, The Westminster Confession, on the other hand, cannot claim the support of the whole church.

[ebia]

Alternatively, if you want one from a more protestant site:
http://www.creeds.net/reformed/creeds.htm

[Petro]

The site you link to doesn't even seem to be a christian one (based on a quick glance).  It describes pelagianism, but doesn't even mention the creeds

ebia,

Hey...if it was representative of either side, one or the other it would not be neutral then, would it..??

you said;

To portray it as the product of the Catholic & Eastern Orthodox churches only is misleading.

How so??

Maybe you'd like to sort out your punctuation (& spelling - I assume you mean canon), but I'll take a guess at what you mean.

The church belongs to Christ, it is His, and He does not need the church to cannonize His Word, He thru the Holy Spirit, guided men who are filled by thre Holy Spirit to not only write the book, but to preserve it, in spite of what men say or do.

Just because you believe a certain version imen cannonized is of God, doesn't change the truth of which one is the true inspired version, one bit.  You can be deceived.

Regardless, the point is that God guided the Church, the body of Christ, over some considerable period, in deciding the canon.  And he guided the same Church in formulating the Nicene Creed.

FWIW, The Westminster Confession, on the other hand, cannot claim the support of the whole church.

This means nothing, both are written by men for men, one covers the finer points, while the other is a document to settle heretical teachings, within the intsitution;  I doubt God was involved in the heretical teachings, and He didn't decide to negotiate with himself to settle the matter, with a 99 word, statement,  the Bible already declared the truth concerning the points of contention, and they never change.

So a creed or some other document, won't affect the truth one bit.



Petro

[ebia]

The site you link to doesn't even seem to be a christian one (based on a quick glance).  It describes pelagianism, but doesn't even mention the creeds

ebia,

Hey...if it was representative of either side, one or the other it would not be neutral then, would it..??

Probably not, but I'm not sure that this site hasn't got its own axe to grind on the issue.   Anyway, I don't think we're actually arguing about what Pelagianism is, are we?

you said;

To portray it as the product of the Catholic & Eastern Orthodox churches only is misleading.

How so??

If that's not self evident, I'm not sure I can explain it.

Maybe you'd like to sort out your punctuation (& spelling - I assume you mean canon), but I'll take a guess at what you mean.

The church belongs to Christ, it is His, and He does not need the church to cannonize His Word, He thru the Holy Spirit, guided men who are filled by thre Holy Spirit to not only write the book, but to preserve it, in spite of what men say or do..

He did use some people to tell us which books are scripture, and which are not, just as he used some other people to write the books in the first place.  Those same people (the early church) are the ones who wrote the ancient creeds.

Just because you believe a certain version imen cannonized is of God, doesn't change the truth of which one is the true inspired version, one bit.  You can be deceived.

We aren't arguing about which version of canon is the true, inspired one, are we?

Regardless, the point is that God guided the Church, the body of Christ, over some considerable period, in deciding the canon.  And he guided the same Church in formulating the Nicene Creed.

FWIW, The Westminster Confession, on the other hand, cannot claim the support of the whole church.

This means nothing, both are written by men for men, one covers the finer points, while the other is a document to settle heretical teachings, within the intsitution;  I doubt God was involved in the heretical teachings, and He didn't decide to negotiate with himself to settle the matter, with a 99 word, statement,  the Bible already declared the truth concerning the points of contention, and they never change.

So a creed or some other document, won't affect the truth one bit.

It doesn't change the truth - of course not.  That would be nonsense.  Neither does it contradict scripture. It clarifies it and interprets it.

You still haven't told me whether or not you accept what it says.

[ebia]

You still haven't told me whether or not you accept what it says.

And you haven't explained how the Nicene Creed is semi-Pelagian.

Especially in light of the fact that, as http://www.creeds.net/reformed/creeds.htm , says, it is accepted by the vast majority of Christians, whether Othodox, Catholic, Anglican, Protestant or whatever.

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I think there's some confusion.

If someone were to claim that Jesus was a created being, that would be heresy.

But that is not what Acts says, nor, to be fair, what the OP was trying to say.

A Kingmaker is not someone who creates a person who is King, but one who causes a person to become King.  Similarly, this passage affirms that after Our Lord had achieved His work, the Father bestowed upon Him the status of Lord and King - His by right, but which He had laid aside in His incarnation.  Is this something we can agree on?

Turning to the creeds - they are indeed universally accepted.  The Westminster Confession is a specifically Reformed Protestant statement of faith, and a very Calvinist one at that.  That is not to say the WC is wrong (although I don't subscribe to all of it personally), it is false to say it defines Christianity.  It defines Calvinist Reformed Protestant Christanity.  But the Church is bigger than Calvinism, and it is bigger than Protestantism.

[Allinall]

I think there's some confusion.

If someone were to claim that Jesus was a created being, that would be heresy.

Am I the only one who sees this as hair splitting?  The issue with the "creation" of Jesus is the fact of His preexistence.  According to John 1:1-2 -

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

- He preexisted.  He is God, was God, and for ever more will be God.  And not because a creed states this, but because He states this in His word.

However, He was made - in the form of a man - the incarnation.  This does not negate His innate, eternality nor His deity.  But to deny His humanity is as heretical as denying His deity:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Philippians 2:5-8

This passage is often used to espouse the servanthood of Christ (and rightly so).  Yet the passage refers to His act of forming Himself in the form of man, and being born.  We should scriptural about Christ.

[Petro]

ebia, I got off on other more important business, but to answer your question;

As stated previouly, the Nicene Creed, has different readings, with inserted language, throughout the centuries and it still is called the Nicene Creed, the one I would subscribe to is the Prebyterian Church's version.

                 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 and the Son,
     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. Amen.



How anybody can say, it is Calvinst in nature, only shows that persons  ignorance of what he is reading.

And for the benefit of the ignorant, I post the website that has some history;

http://www.creeds.net/

NOTES AND COMMENT


When the Nicene Creed was drawn up, the chief enemy was Arianism,
which denied that Jesus was fully God. Arius was a presbyter
 (=priest = elder) in Alexandria in Egypt, in the early 300's. He
taught that the Father, in the beginning, created (or begot) the
Son, and that the Son, in conjunction with the Father, then
proceeded to create the world. The result of this was to make the
Son a created being, and hence not God in any meaningful sense. It
was also suspiciously like the theories of those Gnostics and pagans
who held that God was too perfect to create something like a
material world, and so introduced one or more intermediate beings
between God and the world. God created A, who created B, who
created C... who created Z, who created the world. Alexander, Bishop
of Alexandria, sent for Arius and questioned him. Arius stuck to
his position, and was finally excommunicated by a council of
Egyptian bishops. He went to Nicomedia in Asia, where he wrote
letters defending his position to various bishops. Finally, the
Emperor Constantine summoned a council of Bishops in Nicea (across
the straits from modern Istambul), and there in 325 the Bishops of
the Church, by a decided majority, repudiated Arius and produced the
first draft of what is now called the Nicene Creed. A chief
spokesman for the full deity of Christ was Athanasius, deacon of
Alexandria, assistant (and later successor) to the aging Alexander.
The Arian position has been revived in our own day by the Watchtower
Society (the JW's), who explicitly hail Arius as a great witness to
the truth.


I might remind you, the Eastern portion of the empire, together with the pope of the day, embraced Arianism, they are the ones who refer to themselves as the Eastern Orhtodox christian church of today.

Note they are not included in those subscribing to this creed..since they want nothing to do with the RCC.

*Holy Catholic and Apostolic church, does not refer to the Roman Catholic churchwho refers to itself as the Catholic church...

Blessings,

Petro

[ollie]

 Matthew 16:13.  When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
 14.  And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
 15.  He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
 16.  And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
 17.  And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.


 Luke 2:9.  And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
 10.  And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
 11.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, WHICH IS CHRIST THE LORD.


John 20:31.  But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

[ebia]

ebia, I got off on other more important business, but to answer your question;

No worries.

Ok - that's the same version as I'm used to (bar the odd insignificant difference in translation), ie it's the same Nicene creed used by the Roman Catholic church, the Anglican Church and pretty much every protestant church.  Except for 3 words ("and the son" - known as the filioque) added to " who proceeds from the Father " by the RC church, its the same same as that used by the Othodox churches to.   Remove those three words and its just about the only statement that virtually the entire christian world agrees upon.  And has done since its last amendment (bar those three words) about 1500 years ago, give or take the odd century.

Thats why I was a bit surprised by your retisence to acknowledge it.

I might remind you, the Eastern portion of the empire, together with the pope of the day, embraced Arianism, they are the ones who refer to themselves as the Eastern Orhtodox christian church of today

Not quite.  What survives as the Orthodox church today is those who kept the true faith alive while most of their contemporaries turned to Arianism.  They most definitely do not embrace the Arian heresy, and would get very upset if you suggested they did.

Note they are not included in those subscribing to this creed..since they want nothing to do with the RCC.

They do subscribe to it, but without the filioque added by the RCC after it had split with the East.

[ollie]

 

Not quite.  What survives as the Orthodox church today is those who kept the true faith alive while most of their contemporaries turned to Arianism.  They most definitely do not embrace the Arian heresy, and would get very upset if you suggested they did.

Ebia,

If the orthodox church keeps the true faith, then why did it denominate itself with the name "Orthodox church" and remove the glory from whom the church belongs, Jesus Christ?

Jesus is both Lord and Christ and head of His church; it is in Him that His church is, described, identified and known.  

[ebia]

eh?

[ollie]

eh?

The church is the Lord's body of which He is the head. Why does the Orthodox church call itself, (denominate), "the Orthodox church?" Why not Christ's?

[ollie]

Colossians 1: 13.  Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
 14.  In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
 15.  Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
 16.  For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
 17.  And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
 18.  And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
 19.  For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
 20.  And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
 21.  And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
 22.  In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:

[ebia]

eh?

The church is the Lord's body of which He is the head. Why does the Orthodox church call itself, (denominate), "the Orthodox church?" Why not Christ's?

The same reason most other churches don't include the word Christ in their title, I would imagine - they take it as implicit in the word Church.

I'm really at a loss to see what your problem is here; the Orthodox churches do see the Church as the body of Christ on earth.