By Greg Holt

Let me clearly state at the outset, that I have no problem with the majority of the Nicene Creed, I only take issue with one statement, and one idea in fact, but that does not mean that the rest of it is untrue.

So how did this come about? I will explain.

There was a post that I commented on, on a social media site.  The post’s author stated that the author had made up their own creed.  I wasn’t to impressed with that.  So, I stated, (I’m paraphrasing myself here) why not toss all creeds, and simply rely on Jesus Christ, and His word to us, the Bible.  Notice that I did not in any way badmouth the Nicene Creed, or state that it was false.

Wow, I was verbally eviscerated for what I had said.  I was told that I was a fool who knows nothing, ignorant.  I had no understanding of Scripture, it was even implied that I was not a Christian, not saved.  I was told my thoughts and reality have little in common, and on, and on, and on.

One said that, the Nicene Creed is, “The bible [sic] for dummies”.  After all it was said, “if you can recite the creed, you are far ahead of most as far as Christianity goes.”  Uh, wow. 

I stated as a reply to some comment that the Creed was not of Christ.  I was informed that it most certainly was of Jesus Himself, and on, and on, and on.  Then the argument changed to that the Creed was inspired by Holy Spirit, and He and Jesus are one and the same.  Ok, how do you know it was inspired by Jesus, or Holy Spirit?  Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t.

It was strongly implied by one commenter that the Nicene Creed is Scripture, and that I was denying Christ by saying otherwise!  Seriously???  Another said that, “the first four ecumenical councils,” were also directly inspired by Jesus Christ.  The later “councils” were strictly Catholic in nature (After the four).  Why would Jesus “inspire” councils to argue over the meaning of His Word, the Bible?  Do you see the problem here?  That’s like saying that the doctrine of the Pharisees was “divinely” inspired.

Funny, but I have not been able to find the book in the Bible called The Nicene Creed.  Maybe the Creed was inspired, I don’t honestly know.  The difference is, the Bible although written by men, was and is literally the Word of God, the Creed is not.  The Nicene Creed is not on the same level as the Bible, nor is it proper or correct to use the Creed (Any creed) to interpret the Bible, or stand in its place.

Back to the statement in the Creed that I do not agree with. “I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins…”  It is generally understood, that this means that water baptism is necessary for the salvation of one’s soul.  This is a widely held belief of the Catholic Church.  It is also unbiblical.  This statement was most definitely not inspired by Holy Spirit!  One poster implied, rather disingenuously I thought, that this statement referred to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, it does not. 

Baptism is Not Required for Salvation

There are of course those who do believe that one has to be baptized, in order to be saved.  That is highly problematical.  The thing about Scripture is, it absolutely must be read and understood in context, good biblical hermeneutics are indispensable.  Not following this way of understanding the bible is how the twisted beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witnesses came to be.

In Acts 10:44-48, people are clearly saved first, and baptized after they were saved.  If baptism was required for salvation, this could never have occurred.

In Acts 8:35-38, Philip was preaching about Jesus to the Ethiopian eunuch, he, the eunuch, believed first, and was baptized after.

Then there is the thief on the cross next to Jesus, who was never baptized, and he was saved (Luke 23:42-43)!

Either baptism is required for salvation, or it’s not, it can’t be both ways.  These verses demonstrate that it is not.

Then there is also the fact that adding anything to Christ’s perfect sacrifice, which of course did save us, is legalism, and invalidates Christ’s perfect work on the cross.

“⁸ For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: ⁹ not of works, lest any man should boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9

Salvation is the gift of God; it has nothing to do with works.

The One Word That Causes Issues

In the Nicene Creed is one word that has caused much contention in the Church, depending on one’s views obviously.  That word is: “consubstantial”.  Consubstantial literally means “of the same substance.”  That was actually the prior wording in the Nicene Creed, it was changed much later on to the current consubstantial.

Here’s my problem with this, there are those who insist that since consubstantial means to be of the same substance, or the same essence, that Jesus and the Father are one God.  Not two distinct manifestations of the same God (The Trinity, when Holy Spirit is included), but one God, period.  Jesus and the Father, one being.  This is theologically wrong.

The other definition of what this means is that Jesus and the Father share the same “stuff,” to put it very simply.  Both Jesus and the Father are God, both are divine.  This then is the proper interpretation and meaning.

I’m not saying that this word in the Creed is wrong, I simply think that a different choice of wording should have been used to make the intended meaning more resolute, leaving no room for false interpretation.

This then goes back to what I said before about using outside material to interpret the Bible, always a bad idea.  Can outside sources of information shed some additional light on the Bible, absolutely, but these sources must never be used to derive the meaning of the Word of God.  The Bible must interpret the Bible.  If that seems confusing or stupid, well, look up the meaning and application of Bible hermeneutics.