Nicene Creed Q&A

There are numerous misconceptions about the Nicene Creed. This is not surprising since this statement of faith has served as the Holy Grail of Christianity for almost 1,700 years. Here, now a few key questions and answers:

When was the Nicene Creed first adopted? What we know today as the Nicene Creed was first adopted at an all-church council convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine in 325 AD, in Nicaea (currently known as Isnik in Turkey).

What was the reason for the Nicene Creed? The Nicene Creed was formed as a statement of Christian faith – to clarify differing opinions as to whether and in what ways Jesus Christ was God. The source of the dispute that had precipitated the Nicene convention was that of a presbyter named Arius from Alexandria (in today’s Egypt). Arius had stated that Jesus: “… is not equal to God, nor yet is he of the same substance.” In response, the creed adopted by the Council articulated the belief that Jesus is “of one substance” with God the Father.

Is there more than one Nicene Creed? Yes, somehow the original creedal formulation was apparently lost. Consequently, the Nicene Creed was reformulated essentially as we know it today at the second ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381 – more than fifty years after the initial creed was adopted.

What are the key differences between the original Nicene Creed and the Nicene Creed as we know it today? The Nicene Creed of today contains additional language to reinforce the Catholic (and Protestant) affirmation that Jesus is the “only” and “eternally” begotten Son of God the Father. The modern creed states that Jesus “came down from heaven,” reinforces the “power of the Holy Spirit,” identifies the role of the Virgin Mary and the crucifixion under Pontius Pilate. The Jesus of the modern creed “is seated at the right hand of the Father,” will come again “in glory,” and his kingdom will “have no end.”

Items found in the original Nicene Creed of 325 but not in today’s creed include the emphasis that Jesus made things “in heaven and things on earth.” This original creed also explicitly “anathematizes” those who would say that the son of God is “of another substance or essence,” or “created,” or “changeable.” These anathemas (or condemnations to damnation) are not to be found in today’s creedal formulation.

Is the Nicene Creed in conflict with Judaism and Old Testament beliefs? Yes, the concept that Jesus is God is in apparent direct conflict with the Hebraic Shema covenant statement that “the LORD our God, the LORD is one!” (Deuteronomy 6:4). From the Old Testament perspective, the concept of a second or even third God (with the Holy Spirit) is tantamount to idolatry.

Is there Biblical support for the Trinitarian formula embodied by the Nicene Creed? Yes and no. There are scriptural references (particularly in the New Testament) that can be interpreted both in support of and counter to the concept of a Godhead that is “three in one.” However, there is no biblical statement that directly uses the terminology of the Nicene Creed that Jesus is “of the same essence” as the Father.

What does the Nicene Creed have to do with heresy? The heresy of Nicaea can be viewed from two perspectives. From the vantage point of the Roman Emperor Constantine, Arius and those who opposed the Nicene Creed were labeled as “heretics”. From a different perspective, the heresy could be viewed as the imposition of universal (Catholic) dogma by an imperial ruler and politician rather than by consensus coming from within the body of the Church itself.

Click here to read more about the Nicene Creed.

• How did the 27 books today recognized as the New Testament come to be? Did acceptance of a canon happen as the result of a single event, or did acceptance emerge gradually over time?
• Did the impetus for a New Testament come from orthodox or heretical Christians?
  
• While the current list of 27 books has been essentially in place since the 4th century, should the canon be viewed as closed?
  

Since the days of the apostolic church, it has been important for the mainstream church to aggressively protect the purity of the gospel by excluding writings that clearly appeared to be in conflict with what was perceived as orthodoxy. However, has this exclusionary process shortanged Christianity of diversity in understanding and expression?

Origins of the Old Testament
We now reach back a step earlier in time – to the formation of that portion of the Bible commonly known as the Old Testament (OT). The term "Old Testament" is actually a bit of a misnomer. For Judaism, there is neither "Old" nor "New" Testament. There are simply the Hebrew Scriptures:

• Over what time period was the Old Testament written and then compiled into a form that represented an official canon?
  
• What stimulated preservation and eventual clarification of an accepted set of Hebrew scriptures? To what extent and in what ways was the early Christian church important to Old Testament (OT) canonization?
  
• To what degree has has there been consistency or conflict in the categorization of OT writings regarded as canonical? What role do the Apocrypha play?
  
• How have variations in OT translation affected Christian understanding of both Old and New Testaments?
  

Christianity has often muddied the waters of the Hebrew scriptures. However, Christians have also (perhaps inadvertently) found themselves in league with their Jewish brethren by adopting a remarkably similar OT canon. Interestingly, Judaism and Christianity share similar views as to OT books of primary versus secondary importance – including OT references most often cited by Jesus (notably the Pentateuch, Psalms and Isaiah).

• Should the books that have been received be regarded as scripture?
  
• Are there other writings not included within the canon that could also be regarded as inspired scripture?
  
• In short, should the canon remain closed?
  

A case can be made that the canon remains open – for new information, for further argumentation, and quite possibly for multiple interpretations. For both the Old and New Testaments, there is no black box. Scripture did not materialize as deux ex machina (God out of a machine).

Rather, we know that writings viewed as scriptural were prepared over time by multiple authors. Decisions about which writings should be in or out of a canon were made by humans – and vigorously debated.

The process of deciding which writings are inspired – whether historical or contemporary – is not necessarily over. Is now the time to reinvigorate the discussion?