Re: Nicene Creed

From: Michael Roberts (
Date: Wed Jun 18 2003 - 18:03:18 EDT

  • Next message: D. F. Siemens, Jr.: "Re: Concordist sequence"

    On e of my favourite theological books is The Oecumenical Documents of the
    Faith first published in 1899 and gives all the creeds , Chalcedonian
    definition, Tome of leo etc. Loads pn appendices ot the creed of nicea and
    the filioque (and the Son).

    The least important thing is the filioque and the most important is to have
    a full blooded trinitarianism which is a soteriological issue not
    ontological and this is where Arianism falls down, pace Athanasius. I.e.
    Jesus was God and Man so man could be redeemed or "godified" . Remember the
    Orthodox talk of the theosis of Christians being "deified" which is of
    course foreign to Christans of the Western tradition be they RC anglciasn,
    reformed or fundamentalists.
    It even has the arian Creed of the Apostolicx Constitutions which is in the
    same format as the "Nicene Creed" but leaves out God from God Light from
    Light true God from true God ( I translate from the original or rather that
    recieved from Eusebius and Athanasius.)

    I can never understand why some have problems either with the Nicene(const)
    creed or the Chalcedonian defintion as I see that they mark out where the
    best christian grazing is within.

    I think the ASA summary is fine . It is a definition for Christians who have
    thought about their faith not an evangelsitic statement.


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "bivalve" <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 9:29 PM
    Subject: Re: Nicene Creed

    > Although several posts have alluded to it, it may help to state exactly
    what the difference is between eastern (Orthodox) and western (Roman
    Catholic/Protestant) versions.
    > Originally, the Spirit was described as proceeding from the Father. In
    response to a particular heresy, the western churches changed this to
    proceeding from the Father and the Son. However, this was done without a
    formal church council and with no input from the Orthodox church. Thus, to
    the Orthodox the western version is improperly ammended, whereas the western
    churches saw the Orthodox version as omitting an important phrase.
    > As far as I know, there is no objection to the concept that the Spirit
    proceeds from the Son. Conversely, the original does not say He does not
    proceed fom the Son. Thus, I do not think there is much theological import
    to the choice of version.
    > Dr. David Campbell
    > Old Seashells
    > University of Alabama
    > Biodiversity & Systematics
    > Dept. Biological Sciences
    > Box 870345
    > Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
    > That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
    Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
    Droitgate Spa

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jun 18 2003 - 18:09:24 EDT