When faced with early heresies like Marcionism and Arianism, the early church employed a double-edged sword to combat the assault -- the New Testament Canon and the Nicene Creed.
Since 325 AD, the Nicene Creed has been virtually universally accepted among Christians as the authoritative interpretation of New Testament orthodoxy. Even supposedly non-creedal protestant denominations (like the Southern Baptists) are Nicene in their beliefs, though they don't openly embrace and recite the creed.
I suspect that, if polled, your average Baptist wouldn't even know what the Nicene Creed is, much less what it did to stem the tide of heresy that threatened to overwhelm the faith in the third and fourth centuries.
I wonder, then, is the Nicene Creed still the litmus test for orthodoxy?
In the past couple of centuries in America, certain cults have sprouted, claiming a new revelation from God, and denying the Nicene Creed, and, consequently, the doctrines of the orthodox faith. Most notably among those cults are the Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses. Their beliefs are so radically different from historic Christianity that church historian Justo Gonzalez rightly calls them "other religions."
But what about the other belief systems that while perhaps not heretical, are at least heterodox in their understanding of fundamental tenets of Christianity?
Take for example, the United Pentecostal Church (UPC). In his classic writing, Systematic Theology, Wayne Grudem contends that it's debatable whether or not the UPC should be considered Christian at all. For example, the UPC clearly denies the orthodox doctrine of The Trinity and certainly does not affirm the Nicene Creed (though they do use the same New Testament Canon as other Christians).
While my ecumenical preferences make it difficult for me to pass judgment on heterodox organizations like the UPC, I do think the Nicene Creed is still the authoritative interpretation for all New Testament believers.
The Canon and the Creed is still the Church Universal's double-edged sword.
"And do you now begin to see why Christianity has always said that the devil is a fallen angel? That is not a mere story for the children. It is a real recognition of the fact that evil is a parasite, not an original thing. The powers which enable evil to carry on are powers given it by goodness."
- C.S. Lewis
- C.S. Lewis
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/4093.
Comments on "Canon and Creed":
2. salguod
- 09/03/2007 9:15 pm CDT
I have a question. I go to a Church of Christ. For the CoC, one of our most important beliefs is the belief in baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We are forgiven at baptism. We take this from many sources, both Biblical (Acts 2, Romans 6, 1 Peter 3 and others) and extra Biblical (many early Christian writings refer to baptism as being for the forgiveness of sins).
One such extra Biblical source is the Nicene creed, which states toward the end:
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
I'm not necessarily interested in a debate on what baptism is for. Not that I won't explain my convictions, but I've learned that those debates are generally fruitless.
What interests me is that, as stated in this post, the Nicene Creed is fundamental to most branches of modern Christianity, and states pretty clearly that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, yet it seems that most Christian groups do not teach nor practice baptism in that way. I don't understand that contradiction. Can someone explain it to me?
(BTW - I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I'm genuinely curious about this.)
3. Bird
- 09/03/2007 9:20 pm CDT
I'd interpret that portion of the Nicene Creed just as I'd interpret that portion of the Bible -- baptism because of the forgiveness of sins rather than baptism as something salvific.
As always, I should be the last to comment having no wisdom nor knowledge on this subject, but I do have opinion. and imho, no trinity = no Christian.