What I believe...derived from the Nicene Creed

The Nicene Creed

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.*
With the Father and the Son He is worshiped 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.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN.
*Roman Catholics and Protestants add ‘and the Son’ at this point.

The more that I’ve read about the Catholic and Orthodox perspectives and the history of ecumenical issues, the more I’ve come to appreciate the Nicene Creed. I grew up in a Baptist Church, one that didn’t use the Nicene Creed (we were never big on creeds as such), so my introduction to the Creed came later, when I started attending Mass with my girlfriend (now wife). The Creed was at once familiar, but also contained that dreaded word, “Catholic”. I had a similar reaction (typically omitting that one phrase) to that of Brian McLaren’s church when they

Began using the Nicene Creed in our public worship. For the first year or two, we edited one word in the creed, changing “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church,” to “We believe in one holy universal and apostolic church”, embarrassed to use the word catholic for fear we would be accused of latent papacy. [1]

The word that hung us both up was of course catholic. The problem was that we were both assuming that catholic meant Roman Catholic, which made it feel like the Creed was saying that the ONLY Church was the Catholic church. However, that’s not what the word means at all (and certainly not what the Catholic Church means by it, especially after Vatican II). “The word doesn’t mean Roman Catholic; it means universal.” [2] (the Creed having been written long before the East/West split, let alone the Protestant Reformation) That being the case, we should all believe in one universal Church, especially compared to the fragmented church that we have today. The point then is that Christians believe in a universal Church (note the big “C”) even though they are divided up into a bunch of local churches (notice the little “c”). We are united in Spirit, if not in fact; that’s an important point to remember.
Why bring up the Nicene Creed at all, doesn’t it add a layer of complication to the Biblical truth themselves? That seems unlikely, but I certainly am not going to say that this Creed supersedes Scripture in any way, but this Creed is also very important from a historical viewpoint in that it reveals the level of doctrinal unity that was achieved by the early Church, and because the Creed “continues to be uttered in all the major traditions of Christendom, exemplifying this common bond of unity.” [3] As such, the Nicene Creed may represent a glimpse at the future (by way of the past) in that it offers a fairly simple belief statement that most of today’s Christians already accept (excepting the filioque added in the West, not accepted in the East). We need to strip bare the walls that we’ve built upon the foundation of Christ that the Gospel proclaims; when we’ve let go of our prejudices and can embrace each other as true believers we will be able to rebuild on that foundation. The Nicene Creed shows us an example of what we should rebuild.
What was the original purpose of the Creed? When the First Ecumenical Council was convened in A.D. 325 at Nicaea, the Church was struggling with the divisive influence of the beliefs of the Arian faction. Arian had taught, in essence, that Jesus Christ was not really a divine being (not really God), but rather a created being (like ourselves and angels).

The aim of the council was to protect the truth of the gospel. Thus the council set for a necessarium of Christian belief without presenting a compendium of theological truths. The council sought to emphasize the fundamental truth inherent in the gospel, with scripture as the essential guideline to the apostolic mind. [4]

Thus the Nicene Creed was seen by the early Church as a minimum of belief (not an exhaustive explanation) that everyone who was truly a Christian could agree to. The Council’s work in formulating the creed turned out to be enormously successful in that it was the faith of an undivided Christendom until the eleventh century.
As a test of belief, the Nicene Creed goes a long way toward providing a platform that nearly all of the world’s Christians can agree to. In theological controversies, Christological issues are always central (as nearly all heresies attack the understanding of the person of Christ), thus the bedrock nature of any test of faith. However, when we are capable of speaking and acting in terms of unity the Church will be grateful that we have the Nicene Creed as a benchmark.

A commentary on the Nicene Creed

We believe

– the ideal of any Christian creed should be acceptance by as much of Christendom as possible. The Nicene creed offers nearly universal acceptance by all branches of the Church that have a minimum of Christian orthodoxy. Any basic theology should appeal to everyone who has a legitimate claim to Christianity, it should not turn off large segments of the Church nor should it emphasize the particular preferences or grudges that have shaped so many of our churches. We need to emphasize the whole Gospel, but not all of the asterisks and caveats that we like to include with it.

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.

– The nature of Christ is the subject of endless controversy and heresy. The divinity and humanity of Christ are absolutely necessary for a true Gospel and cannot be compromised. Christ must be fully God and fully man in order to be the sacrifice that fulfills the O.T. requirements of the Law, an acceptable sacrifice (the theme of Hebrews) in every way. This section of the Creed clearly states that Jesus Christ is eternally the Son of God, of exactly the same substance of the Father and in no way created (as in John 1:1-2)

Through Him all things were made.

– The role of Christ in Creation (John 1:3), in cooperation with the Father, as part of the eternal plan that would lead to the Incarnation. Christ was Creating, not created.

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.

– The purpose of the Incarnation was the salvation of humanity through the cross and resurrection. Just as Jesus must be fully God, he must also be fully man. Through the Holy Spirit Jesus was born of Mary, of the line of David (in keeping God’s promises to Abraham, David, etc.), of God’s chosen people, the Hebrews. The Virgin Birth was part of the salvation plan agreed upon by the member of the Trinity before the world was created.

For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate;

- The crucifixion of Christ was no accident, as Jesus went willingly to the cross knowing it to be the fulfillment of Scripture, the will of the Father, and necessary for the salvation of mankind. Christ would not have gone to the cross if there had been any other way to save mankind from rebellion against God. We are entirely incapable of effecting our own salvation, or of pleasing God apart from Christ. (Romans 3:23, 4:25, 5:6-9, 6:23)

He suffered death and was buried.

– No room for the slander that Jesus merely “swooned” on the Cross and was later revived. He was dead and buried in the tomb for three days. Only by suffering death could the power of God through Christ conquer death once and for all.

On the third day He rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;

- the resurrection is entirely necessary for the Gospel (I Corinthians 15:3-4,12-21), it was the confirmation that Jesus’ sacrifice was accepted by the Father, that our sins had indeed been paid for, and that death was truly defeated. The historical fact of the resurrection cannot in any way be compromised by the Church to satisfy those who don’t believe in miracles, without it, the Gospel is meaningless.

He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

– When Christ completed his work of salvation he returned to the Father, having finished his work once and for all (Hebrews 9:26-28); nothing else is needed for salvation, the way to the Father now stands open through Christ.

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

– There is no end to the foolish pronouncements about when Christ will return, nor to the fixation by those in the Church with the subject. However, the Scriptures clearly state that nobody but the Father knows the day or hour. The truth that we acknowledge is simply that Christ will return and set up his kingdom.

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

- The third member of the trinity, the Holy Spirit who seals believers (Ephesians 4:30) and intercedes on our behalf to the Father (Romans 8:26-27) It is at this point that the Church in the West adds “and the Son”, it was not part of the original creed and is thus not accepted in the East.

With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified.

– The Holy Spirit is co-equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and equally God.

He has spoken through the Prophets.

– The Holy Spirit was instrumental in the writing of the Scriptures, inspiring those who wrote them to ensure that they contain Truth without error (factual or theological, the Scriptures are infallible on each subject that they address). There are many books that contain wisdom, but none that have the same authority or enduring power of the Scriptures.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

– The Church should be united in fact as it is in Spirit. That it is not is a human failing, not the design of the Father. Any and all efforts should be made to foster ecumenical unity, denouncing animosity and hatred within the Church, and seeking to present a united front to the lost (for the sake of the Gospel). The reality of the multitudes of churches today makes any formal unity unlikely, but the Church will be united under Christ when he returns (whether we like it or not). In the same vein, we all trace our Christian ancestry to the work of the Apostles who set up the original church as a model and guide for later generations of believers.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

– The mode and means of Baptism is certainly an area full of divisiveness, but the Early Church acknowledged one baptism as a public profession of faith (Romans 10:9), in the tradition of John the Baptist who used baptism to signify the rejection of sin and the renewal of the commitment of those who came to him to follow the LORD.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN.

– Those who have died in Christ will be resurrected to life eternal in the presence of the Father. There is no other path available to the Father, through other religions or individual effort, which can be successful; only Christ offers resurrection to life to all who believe in him.


[1] McLaren, Brian D., A Generous Orthodoxy, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 2004, P. 222.
[2] Ibid. P. 224.
[3] Calian, Carnegie Samuel, Theology Without Borders: Encounters of Easter Orthodoxy and Western Tradition, Westminster/John Knox Press, Louisville, 1992, P. 4.
[4] Ibid. P. 5.