Tuesday, January 20, 2015

The Creed of Nicaea vs The Nicene Creed

Not known to many are the major differences in the "Creed of Nicaea" and what is called the "Nicene Creed." The latter is what is recited in churches each Sunday all over the world, the former is the actual Rule of Faith formulated at Nicaea in 325 A. D..

The "Creed of Nicaea" (also called the "Creed of the 318" for the number of bishops who signed it at the Council of Nicaea -- according to Athanasius) was formulated around the word "homoousia" which was the watchword of the Modalist. The purpose of the council was to formulate a common creed that would put the followers of Arius out of fellowship. The Modalist Monarchian’s watchword "homoousia" would do the trick, so to speak, in that if used of Jesus and the Father it would insist that they were the same being or essence. The word was most likely suggested by Hosius, Bishop of Cordova in what is now Spain. He was the Emperor's chaplain. (Contrary to legend Rome had little to do with this council. The Roman bishop, Sylvester, was not in attendance and had no signatures on the rule of faith formulated there—he was represented by two deacons.)

If the thinking of the time is understood and considered (that the "Son" was the "thought" (Word) of the Father which had eternality with the Father -- for who can conceive of God without His thought -- who (the Word) was indeed the same as the Father (homo -ousious), then the Creed of Nicaea is a Monarchian document, not Trinitarian.

According to J. N. D. Kelly the majority of the 318 bishops were uncomfortable with the creed formulated at Nicaea (being, themselves semi-Arians) but were forced to sign the creed in that it was the only wording that the Arians (followers of Arius) could not sign, and was that which was favored by the Emperor, as advised by Hosius.

Concerning the Council of Nicaea and the creed it produced I do happen to have some very definite thoughts: 
  • First, I believe it was a council that was dominated by the Modalist bishops present, even though they were the minority. 
  • Second, the creed produced there is not the document today called the "Nicene Creed." The "Creed of Nicaea" is not the "Nicene Creed." 
  • Third, the "Creed of Nicaea" is also called the "Creed of the 318" for the 318 bishops present and who signed it. 
  • Fourth, the Creed of Nicaea introduced the watchword of Modalism "homoousia." This affirmed the deity of the Son and the deity of the Father to be homo -ousia, or the same being. 
  • Fifth, the president of the Council was most likely Hosius of Cordova Spain; it was he that convinced the Emperor to insist on the word 'homoousia." 
  • Sixth, the Creed of the 318 contained an anathema for all who said that the Father and Son were different hypostasis (persons) . (A later Creed anathematized all who said that the Father and the Son were the same hypostasis). 
  • Seventh, the Creed of the 318 did not mention the Holy Spirit as separate from the Father.
  • Eighth, What is called the Nicene Creed (was formulated at Constantinople [381]), and contains innovations that changed the true Creed of Nicaea completely: 
     1. Removes the anathema, 
     2. Introduces the Son and the Holy Spirit as separates individuals to be worshipped      
         along with the Father,
     3. Introduces Mary as a partner of the incarnation; 
     4. Places Jesus at the right hand of the Father (literally);
     5. Has the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father (later "and from the Son" was added, just         
        when is in dispute: at first it was said to be at the First Council of Toledo in 400, but that is
        based on a forged canon; then it was commonly stated that it was added at the Third Council        
        of Toledo, in 589; but what can be said in truth is that the first documented appearance in the     
        Nicene Creed of the statement "from the Father and the Son" comes in the Twelfth Council of            
        Toledo (689).


Here we present the "Creed of Nicaea" and the "Nicene Creed" for our reader's consideration. It is interesting at the innovations that are found.

The Creed of Nicaea 325 (Creed of the 318)
We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, 

Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down,
and became incarnate and became man, and suffered, and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and dead, And in the Holy Spirit. 

But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing,or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or created, or is subject to alteration or change - these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes. 


The Nicene Creed (Actually it is the Creed of Constantinople 381 and has the Offical name of: Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creed) 

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, 
maker of all that is, seen and unseen. 

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. 

Through him all things were made. 

For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: 
by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. 

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. 

On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; 
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. 

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. 

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. 

With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. 

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.




Hello friends, I am a full time biblical researcher. I  rely on freewill love offerings (from those of you who benefit from my work) and book sales  for my support. Once you have read this paper please consider leaving a small donation at the link provided here? Thank you for your support. -JLH





Concerning Athanasius of Alexendria
A few words must be said concerning Bishop Athanasius who was the great champion of the homousian creed of Nicaea. At the time of the council he was only a deacon under Bishop Alexander who had excommunicated Arius. It was this trouble that occasioned the Council in the first place. Alexander was an aged man and his deacon, Athanasius, represented him in the debates that ensued at Nicaea with Arius. After the Council and after Bishop Alexander died and the deacon Athanasius became bishop, the war between the two Christologies  continued to rage. As the battle lines between Monarchianism and Subordinationism moved back and forth in the Empire, Athanasius found himself expelled from his see in Alexandria, Egypt on several occasions. At one point he was received into the sanctuary offered by the bishop of Rome, Julius,  along with Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, who was expelled from his see by the same forces that opposed Athanasius—headed up by Eusebius of Caesarea, a semi-Arian. Eusebius did sign the Creed of Nicaea, but was one, of the many, that was unhappy with the homoousius clause.

Athanasius died May 2nd, 373; eight years before his creed (Creed of Nicaea, the creed of the 318 bishops) underwent renovation and innovations at Constantinople in 381. Had he been alive, and could have given his voice to the debates, it is doubtful that the "Creed of Nicaea" would have been so violated.

Concerning the creed that bears Athanasius’ name: there is no evidence of the Athanasian Creed dating earlier than the late 8th century. Athanasius was the deacon of a strong and outspoken Monarchian bishop (Alexander), and has been identified as a Modalist, himself. The creed that bears his name is a developed and polished  statement of the Trinity that Athanasius would not have recognized. 

This traditional attribution of the creed to Athanasius was first called into question in 1642 by Dutch Protestant theologian G.J. Voss, and it has since been widely accepted by modern scholars that the creed was not authored by Athanasius. According to authorities it is of Latin origin—Athanasius wrote in Greek.

Reasons commonly given for the rejection of Athanasius' authorship of the Athanasian Creed are:

      1.The creed originally was most likely written in Latin, while Athanasius composed Greek. 
      2. Neither Athanasius nor his contemporaries ever mention the Creed.
      3. It is not mentioned in any records of the ecumenical councils.
      4. It appears to address theological concerns that developed after Athanasius died (including the      
          filioque -- Third Council of Toledo late sixth century 589 ). 
      5. It was most widely circulated among Western Christians.
      6. There is no written evidence of it before the late 8th century -- Athanasius died in the late 4th               century -- a time span of some 400 years.

Excerpted from the author's book entitled "Godhead Theology." Published by Seven Millennium Publications. Order your personal copy today: https://www.amazon.com/Godhead-Theology-Modalism-Original-Orthodoxy/dp/1516983521/ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_1?keywords=Godhead+theology%2C+Hayes&qid=1554054212&s=books&sr=1-1-fkmrnull






Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-apostolicbishops-podcast/id1472262392?fbclid=IwAR2FlRYnNsw5Vu_Bz4PjyEdiAxFMawhtD2BFr_S7WysrpFcYjuQYSHGAlZ

2 comments:

  1. I personally don't follow creedal Christianity but nice to know how they fought it out to come up with an agreement.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your statement that Rome would have nothing to do with Nicaea, is correct. Also that the Bishop Alexandria, was monarchian (one King/God). The Apostolic Oneness believers started out dominant.

    ReplyDelete