Note: I’m using “postmortem” in the way that a project manager would use it. As a software developer, that’s the usual connotation that comes to mind with that word.
Yep, it’s the council of Nicea and specifically, the Nicene Creed.
In my previous posts, we dealt with how Paul dealt and advised dealing with divisive/disorderly men as well as why creeds and confessions are disorienting/profane.
And before we begin…well, this is my third and final post for at least this set, and I’ve spent a lot of time on the first one and it’s already Sunday, so what I’ve opted to do for the sake of time is to dump my notes that I have on my laptop here with minimal editing.
So apologies in advance with any weird or repetitious wording.
Again, this is not meant to be an exhaustive deep dive on the matter, and I’m more the willing to hear things from the other side and consider their validity and update my perspective as new/better information comes my way.
Note that none of Paul’s sayings (not “creeds”) that he mentions specifically in the pastorals are never used as a reaction to false teachers or false doctrine. It’s never been commanded for people to “make statements” on various aspects of life/universe that we can’t possibly know about with full certainty.
The way that the NT treats “bad actors” is to mark them out, confront, correct, and rebuke. If they do not yield, then you kick them out of the church, don’t associate with them (in some cases Paul hands such people over to Satan).
Also note that while other sayings, quotations of the OT, and prophecies are cited in the epistles (which are NOT by definition creeds), the “trustworthy” or “faithful” sayings occur only in the Timothy letters and Titus–those letters that focus on creating order and orientation in the churches and focusing on creating the next generation of faithful believers who are competent and virtuous to be able to do the same.
Most of these are sayings or proverbs or possibly hymns; that are “faithful” (have fidelity with reality) and are “useful” (in helping people orient themselves with The Way that is Christ)
Seems that everywhere they appear in the NT it’s never in the context of reacting against a theological threat.
Besides, it’s bad exegesis to formulate statically rigid belief systems that people MUST assent to as it’s not born out of context, but out of a rivalrous dynamic and out of fear.
The Faithful Sayings
1 Tim 1:15
I am grateful to the one who has strengthened me, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he considered me faithful in putting me into ministry, even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor, and an arrogant man. But I was treated with mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief, and our Lord’s grace was abundant, bringing faith and love in Christ Jesus. This saying is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners”—and I am the worst of them! But here is why I was treated with mercy: so that in me as the worst, Christ Jesus could demonstrate his utmost patience, as an example for those who are going to believe in him for eternal life. Now to the eternal king, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever! Amen.
1 Tim 3:1
This saying is trustworthy: “If someone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a good work.”
1 Tim 4:6-10
By pointing out such things to the brothers and sisters, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, having nourished yourself on the words of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. But reject those myths [old-wive’s tales] fit only for the godless and gullible, and train yourself for godliness. For “physical exercise has some value, but godliness is valuable in every way. It holds promise for the present life and for the life to come.” This saying is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance. In fact this is why we work hard and struggle, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.
2 Tim 2:10-14
Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead according to my gospel, for which I suffer trouble as an evildoer, even to the point of chains; but the word of God is not chained. Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect [faithful men who shall be able to teach others also], that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
This is a faithful saying:
For if we died with Him,
We shall also live with Him.
If we endure,
We shall also reign with Him.
If we deny Him,
He also will deny us.
If we are faithless,
He remains faithful;
He cannot deny Himself.
Remind them [faithful men who shall be able to teach others also] of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers. [I just couldn’t not quote this part as well!]
Titus 3
For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
This is a faithful saying, and these things I want you to affirm constantly, that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men.
But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.
Sanctimony
Regarding the claim that not having a creed and focusing on Scripture and cultivating virtue and becoming more Christ-like is sanctimonious (i.e. “Righteousness accompanied by an unwarranted attitude of moral or social superiority”):
Now, the reason I bring this up is because sometimes you come across somebody who says something like this, “no creed but the bible”. You ever heard that as sanctimonious as that sounds, its folly. For one thing, as soon as that person attempts to open his mouth and explain the Bible, he’s doing the very thing that he says he rejects. If he tries to explain to his child what the Bible says somewhere, he’s doing the very, he’s engaging in the very thing he says he rejects.
Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other. – 1 Cor 4:6
Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar. – Prov 30:6
What’s sanctimonious is having a set of “doctrines” formulated by men and the traditions of men and saying we should submit ourselves to those men because some people think they were thoughtful and godly.
It’s sanctimonious to say that only these men from certain time periods have the authority over every Christian to “set the boundary of our beliefs”. After they’ve reached their conclusions with their finite minds and limited resources and cultural perspectives, we can no longer critique their conclusions, decisions, and the processes by which they arrived at them? Why not? How is this any different than the Pharisees and their innumerable laws that they claim that if you follow them, you’d be by proxy following the Mosaic law?
What’s the cut-off point for these “great giants of the faith”? Why is no one calling out Augustine for making up a new doctrine of predestination ~300 years after Christ? It’s fine for him to do it and set the boundaries of what Christians can dare to question or think because he’s revered by men? Pretty sure fathers and their children don’t do that.
It’s also a straw-man: a creed is not a “mere summary” or an explanation. If anything a “creed” prevents exploration, investigation, and discovery by arbitrarily putting up boundaries due to a reaction of someone or some group that promulgated an idea that they thought was a “threat”.
Then, other people are supposed to recite and accept it unquestionably without having done the process to arrive at that conclusion in the first place (see: the analogy of the monkeys not going up the tree because every time they do they get sprayed by water and will prevent other monkeys from going up even when they’re no longer threatened to get sprayed).
Then, “bad actors” can still show up by:
- Modifying creeds
- Simply creating their own creed/denomination
- Be perfectly fine in mouthing the creeds all the while their actions/behavior bring destruction and confusion.
They. Don’t. Work.
Council of Nicea
For the council of Nicea, it was around 300 bishops that signed off on the original (yes, first version of it!) So we have 300 guys who are NOT apostles that define the lines of “acceptable” doctrine based on their own limited worldview, culture, and knowledge for every single Christian and church throughout history. Some of them who signed the creed (like Eusebius of Nicomedia) even had reservations when he signed it (he “subscribed with his hand, not with his heart”)
Not to mention the ones who dissented and didn’t sign. Do they not count? Is it meant to be a numbers game?
Eusebius
Speaking of Eusebius (an Arian himself), his discomfort over signing it was because The term homoousios (“same substance”) in referring to what the Father and Son were “made of”. It was controversial because that term was not directly found in Scripture and had been associated with previous teachings that were considered heretical (such as Sabellianism). Since homoousios does not appear in the Bible, he and other Arians argued that using it to define the nature of Christ introduced speculative theology that went beyond what Scripture explicitly taught.
And you know what? Fair point. A very good point, in fact.
Eusebius, along with other bishops who initially resisted the creed, likely felt political and ecclesiastical pressure at the council. Emperor Constantine strongly supported the use of the term homoousios to settle the controversy and bring unity to the Church. Eusebius may have signed the creed to maintain his position and avoid imperial disfavor, despite his theological reservations.
So the picture here isn’t like brave, valiant Christians who serve for the glory of God almighty beating back the wicked heretics controlled by the Devil. Rather, it’s more like a group of guys under political pressure to get it standardized, and get it done NOW. Not only is this a bad way to manage a software project, it’s also a bad way to do exegesis and search for the truth.
More Updates
The funny part is they had to update it after the fact 56 years later, but we assume that it’s right this time and it’s not open for critique or inquiry.
But it doesn’t stop there. It was updated again in the 6th century because Arianism began to spread again in Spain, France, and Rome. That creed certainly did its job didn’t it? Actually, what it did successfully cause was the split between the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox in 1054. There’s your fruit of your “creeds”: schism and division in the churches, and it didn’t stop the proliferation of Arianism in the slightest.
This, incidentally, is the creed that most people cite when they talk about the Nicene Creed, which is specifically called the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. The original was much shorter.
(If you want more details on this, research the “Filioque Controversy”).
What Really Caused Arianism to Dissipate?
What ultimately decimated Arianism was not a creed or even loving discipline/rebuke/dialogue, but rather political shifts (like the conversion of Clovis I for the Franks and the Visi-gothic kingdom for the Spaniards) or warfare (like when the Germanic tribes were conquered by the Byzantine Empire). Warfare and politics did Arianism in, not a creed.
Council of Toledo (589 AD): This was the council that introduced the Filioque into the creed in the West which is also funny, because that F word is what caused the split between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox in the first place!
Council of Florence (1438–1445 AD): Many many many centuries later, there was an attempted reunion between the Eastern and Western Churches, and the council declared the Filioque legitimate from a doctrinal standpoint. However, this did not result in long-term reconciliation, as you can tell even to this day.
And that’s just a ridiculously brief overview of a very complex set of events across several nations and an intermingling of religion and politics. Suffice to say, with hundreds, if not thousands, of creeds and confessions today, you can’t stop people from lying about their affirmations, their wicked behavior despite legitimate intellectual affirmation, nor from just making their own creed/church/denomination entirely.
It’s a fool’s game. It’s a security blanket that doesn’t do, protect, or provide anything.
And that’s just one creed.
And notice that I didn’t say anything about the contents of the creed itself! It has some things that I can attest to see in the Scriptures, some words, like homoousias I don’t see in Scripture and would prefer to stick to the terms used in the Bible like, for example, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation” from Colossians 1.
But creeds as a mode or a means of “protection” or even “pedagogy”, I just don’t see it bear out in history, and if anything, it does the opposite and causes divisions and schisms, which Paul specfically and literally warns us about.
These things DO NOT provoke growth or transformation. These confessions are just security blankets that don’t even do their job and literally cause division and splintering.
The analogy of a “creed-as-a-mere-summary” to a father teaching his child only “works” if you want to keep people, grown adults, in that womb/cocoon/rules-following 4-year-old stage of growth and faith. There is no upwards or forward momentum/runway to provoke real growth and transformation.
Instead, let us begin identifying and honing virtues, process, and methodologies and not focus on tightly holding to conclusions to things we couldn’t possibly know with absolute certainty.
Are “conclusions” that are clung to like a charm or totem be the main goal, or is it the useful tools and processes that transform us to be more Christ-like in all love, patience, hope, and kindness?