Timeline for Was the Nicene Creed accepted under duress?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 2, 2022 at 17:16 | comment | added | Only True God | @Caleb "Rather it affirmed historical teaching over a new newfangled heresy that had become popular." Arius himself testified his views were the conventional views vs. the new views of Athanasius. There is no theologian in the first 200 years of the Church who articulates Trinitarianism that we have record of. NOT ONE. | |
| Aug 2, 2022 at 17:14 | comment | added | Only True God | @Caleb "Trinitarianism was well established long before Niceae. One need look no farther than earlier creeds such as the Apostle's Creed to establish that." Care to quote the Creed you're talking about? Because Unitarians typically have no problem with the Apostle's Creed. I think you're reading Trinitarianism into it. | |
| Dec 20, 2016 at 16:40 | comment | added | Lee Woofenden | @fredsbend If you were to state that "trinity" is not mentioned and that "persons" are not mentioned, that would be a valid statement. And you could attempt to argue that the framers of the Nicene Creed were not thinking of a trinity of persons. But you might want to read this Q&A first: Are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit explicitly identified as “persons” in any writings directly associated with the Nicene Creed? | |
| Dec 20, 2016 at 16:37 | comment | added | Lee Woofenden | @fredsbend You're simply wrong that the Holy Spirit is not mentioned . The words "And in the Holy Ghost" appear in the 325 version of the Nicene Creed. | |
| Dec 20, 2016 at 15:38 | comment | added | user3961 | @Lee Wikipedia: "In Nicaea, questions regarding the Holy Spirit were left largely unaddressed until after the relationship between the Father and the Son was settled around the year 362." In context of trinity, not mentioned. | |
| Dec 20, 2016 at 5:44 | comment | added | Lee Woofenden | @fredsbend Yes, the Holy Spirit is mentioned both in the 325 version and more fully in the 381 version. What isn't in the Nicene Creed is the use of the term "persons" to describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That became explicit in the Athanasian Creed. | |
| Dec 20, 2016 at 3:45 | comment | added | user3961 | I wouldn't say the Nicene Creed spelled out trinitarianism as much as it did the nature of Christ, that is "one substance with the father". The Holy Spirit, the third person, is not even mentioned. Conversely, arianism says that Jesus was a created creature and also does not have anything to do with the Holy Spirit. | |
| Dec 19, 2016 at 20:33 | history | edited | Lee Woofenden | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Minor typographical fixes
|
| Dec 12, 2016 at 20:52 | comment | added | Dick Harfield | @Caleb And my second paragraph is a factual history that demonstrates that, for some people at least, the Nicene Creed was accepted under duress. The church was split for the best part of a century, which is evidence of 'duress', as is the fact that Theodosius had to insist that all Christians accept the Creed. | |
| Dec 12, 2016 at 20:47 | comment | added | Dick Harfield | @Caleb Where does my answer say that Trinitarianism originated in the fourth century, versus the quite correct statement that the Nicene Council set out to establish it as Christian doctrine? As for the Apostle's Creed, it may well be much older (christianitytoday.com/biblestudies/articles/…, "The earliest historical evidence of the creed's existence is in a letter written by the Council of Milan in 390 A.D."), but the version I know is far from a statement of Trinitarianism (cf Nicene Creed "being of one substance with the Father") | |
| Dec 12, 2016 at 14:38 | comment | added | Caleb | Paragraph 1: Trinitarianism was well established long before Niceae. One need look no farther than earlier creeds such as the Apostle's Creed to establish that. Rather it affirmed historical teaching over a new newfangled heresy that had become popular. Paragraph 2: This is an unreasonable argument is so far as it would not be expected for a heresy to go away just because some council said it was bad. That's never happened any other time in history, why should it be expected here? Paragraph 3: This issue is not as cut and dry as this statement, nor is it clear how it relates to duress. | |
| Feb 20, 2015 at 7:43 | history | answered | Dick Harfield | CC BY-SA 3.0 |