Thoughts on the Nicene Creed

Sorry, these aren't my thoughts. A friend of mine posted a link to this on facebook and I thought it was good enough to post here (although it's not like I've been doing a lot of posting lately).

The author of this post thinks that how we view the Nicene Creed reflects our theological heritage and beliefs. Read through the post and see what you think. I think the author is pretty dead on with his assessment.

The Council of Nicea is a Theological Rorschack Test

(h/t to Kyle Potter for the link on facebook)

Why I Do Not Profess the Filioque: Part 1

I came across this article the other day via my friend Chuck's blog (here).

In this article Ben Myers defends Protestant use of the filioque in the Nicene Creed. Over the next few posts I will attempt to defend my position as to why I do not profess the filioque as a Christian.

Although I'm sure I'll address some of Myers concerns I don't think I'll spend much time picking apart his arguments. Rather, I intend to spend time discussion the development and the potential ramifications of this doctrine and why I find it to be erroneous.

From the outset I should note that much of my thoughts will be adapted from my paper "The Filioque Controversy: An Historical and Theological Analysis" written in 2007. I will try to condense things but will still strive to be true to my sources and cite them when necessary (even though I don't know how to do footnotes on a blog).

To start off the discussion let me just briefly define what is meant by "filioque."

In the 325 the Nicene Creed was birthed as the primary definitive statement of belief for the Christian at the council of Nicea. Since this time, the Nicene Creed (slightly clarified at the council of Constantinople) has remained the chief confession for Christians (even more popular than the apostles creed until the rise of various protestant usage).

In the Nicene Creed is a statement: "I believe in the Holy Spirit...who proceeds from the Father..."

There is however, a much later western tradition (which we will analyze later) that professes the Nicene Creed as follows: "I believe in the Holy Spirit...who proceeds from the Father and the Son..." This phrase "and the Son" is what is meant by "filioque."

While it may seem like this small phrase is something inconsequential we must realize that the theological implications of this phrase are huge. The Great Schism between the Eastern and the Western Church in 1054 was, after all, mostly due to this tiny little phrase.

- Ben

On the Untenable Nature of Calvinist/Predestinarian Theology

As I've mentioned before I'm taking an independent study in the historical and theological development of Eastern Christianity. I find that as I read through books like Jaroslav Pelikan's The Spirit of Eastern Christendom that I am learning not merely about Eastern Christian thought and theology, but that I am finding a much deeper grounding in the holy orthodox doctrines of the entire Church.

In my recent reading I came across a deep discussion by Pelikan concerning the council of Chalcedon and the discussion regarding the dual natures of Christ. Without getting into the depth of this issue and trying to articulate the issues concerning hypostatis, ousia, and the like, I'll try to cover the highlights in a more understandable way.

Coming out of the third ecumenical council held in Constantinople (680-681AD) the Christian Church reaffirmed that Christ was/is a unified being in his divinity and humanity and thus had two natures as the council at Chalcedon had decreed (451AD), and also that he did indeed have TWO wills. One can easily assess this by glancing through scripture at the passages where Jesus says he is here to do not his will but his Father's will, those where he acts out of divine foreknowledge, and various other passages.

If we hold this creedal assertion to be revealed dogma to the church, which we should, it raises some interesting questions. While Protestants may balk at the idea of asserting this creed as authoritative, it should be recognized that not until very recent times did any Christian anywhere question the authority of the creeds. Even Luther, Calvin, and Wesley, fully embraced them. Historically adherence to the 7 ecumenical creeds, of which Nicea (325AD) was the first, was one of the primary, if not the primary, markers to determine if one was in line with the teaching of the Church. These creeds were not viewed as new doctrinal assertions, but rather recapitulations of what the Holy Scriptures, the Apostles and the earliest Fathers had always taught though not necessarily in clarity for which the times called.

So if we hold to this creedal assertion of Christ having both a divine and a human will we can make some interesting observations - one of which I find to be very problematic for those who would like to hold a Calvinistic/predestinarian point of view. It would be interesting to see how Calvin himself treated this creed.

As the Fathers clarified the doctrine of the two wills of Christ (technically: dyotheletism) and thus ruled the notion that Christ has one will (technically: monotheletism) as heresy, the idea of free will rose near the forefront of the discussion. As a document from that time, entitled The Doctrine of the Fathers states: "his power to make choices shared in our being"

Thus part of the ontology of Christ's human will was the freedom of choice. As Maximus the Confessor, a deep defender of dyotheletism, states:

He was endowed not only with a will in accordance with his being god and homoousios [of the same substance] with the Father, but also [with a will] in accordance with his being man and homoousios with us.

Pelikan, in an attempt at clarity states that for the Fathers who finalized the creed at Constantinople

Every rational soul had to possess a decision-making capacity that was free of coercion. Even an unsympathetic interpreter of this Christology is obliged to admit that 'there is noticeable in dyotheletism [the doctrine of two wills]....a reaction against the overriding power of the divine nature in favor of a true and free humanity in Christ.' The freedom of the human will of Christ was not to be overwhelmed by his divinity, so that even such a patristic notion as "the deified will" was not permitted to obliterate this freedom.

If this is the way of Christ our God, even in his deified human will, then how can we begin to assert that our wills are coerced and ultimately predestined? The more I read church history the more I see that the predesitnary strain of theology is very small until it explodes with Calvin and Zwingly. I find this particular theology to be untenable and in light of this Holy orthodox doctrine of the church I find it nigh heretical. I am not willing to assert that it is indeed heretical, but I would really like to know how a good Calvinist theologian deals with this creedal doctrine of the Church, without merely dismissing the creed itself. I find the dismissing of the creed to not be a Christian option.

I'm sure more thoughts will come as I continue to dig deeper into the Faith and particularly the development of Eastern Christian thought. The reading for this independent study is absolutely amazing even though it makes my head want to explode because of its depth. I find it shameful that it took great initiative on my part and a very gracious professor for me to learn in depth these doctrines of the Church and their life-giving power.

Blessings to you all,


- Ben

Flippancy with Orthodoxy

I'm writing a paper this semester on the addition of the "Filioque" clause (for a more detailed explanation click here) in the Nicene Creed. While this may seem like a really nerdy project, and indeed it probably is, the reason I've elected to write on it is because this is a topic that is historically important but also one that I find to be very important for personal piety - especially if I am going to lead a congregation in saying the creed some day.

One may think that this is just a creedal variant and thus it only makes a difference in the deep realm of theology and not in that of the average church. Let me say that I agree with the early church fathers when they often argued that godliness (holiness) were one and the same with correct belief. They taught that out of correct belief comes correct action. While I don't want to get into the deep ramifications of the Filioque insertion, I do believe that it affects our view of the Trinity and thus it effects our view of God. Since I believe we should try to think rightly about God I also believe that I should be concerned with this issue, especially since I hold the Nicene Creed close to my heart as a definitive statement of Orthodoxy.

Since I'm not sure how this inserted statement lines up with scriptural orthodoxy I have chosen to err on the side of not saying "and the Son" when I recite the Nicene Creed. Please know that I'm not saying all this to condemn those who don't think about this, I simply bring it up for two reasons: 1. it's something that I've been thinking through for the past year or so and 2. I catch a lot of crap for thinking this way.

The second reason is the one that I would like to address. Most of the crap that I catch for thinking so intently on this subject are from good friends who joke about it in good fun. I have no problem with this. I don't think it's sacrilege and I can take a joke. I'm sure I've probably been more sacrilegious than all of them combined. However, I am concerned with the number of people who flippantly don't care about this issue and joke about it based on that.

I don't want to be condemnatory toward the laity but I very disappointed in the seminarians who openly mock the notion that one would seriously think about this issue. This is seminary, this is the place where we are suppose to think on these sorts of things and I find it extremely disheartening that there are people on our campus that will argue about our ethos statement against drinking but will not think seriously about the creed we recite and what is says about our God. I am even more depressed when I think about being on chapel team last year. I was on a team that was supposed to lead the community in worship, of which the creeds were occasionally a part, and I was openly mocked by the team for declining to lead the congregation in the recitation of the Nicene Creed because I didn't want to lead them astray one way or the other.

I am amazed with the flippant nature Orthodoxy is treated with among the student body. I allow that this may be a "small issue" (though historically it may be the largest) but there is also a great deal of contempt that is shown toward historic orthodox doctrines in an effort to be creative and think outside of the box. While it is ok to think critically I find it disturbing when we treat historical Christian orthodoxy as chains from which to be freed. This even occurs among the faculty at times. I was in class the other day with a highly published professor and he closely approached the Arian line as he openly pondered if there was a point in eternity before creation at which Christ was unbegotten. He was very careful to say that there was always a Trinity (and thus avoided complete Arianism), but that there may have been a point in eternity when Christ was not begotten of the Father.

I shudder when i think about the generation of Pastors this seminary is training. We are neglecting the substance of the faith in an effort to create pastors that are able to memorize their sermons, use good illustrations, and learn how to be 'relevant'...and for what? So that they can recite sermons without substance from memory? So they can illustrate and perpetuate a form of weak Christianity? So they can lead people away from the Holy Faith and straight into nominal Christianity, in a nominal way?


Lord Have Mercy!!
May God save his people and bless his inheritance!!

Lent: Feasting During the Fast

This lent has been interesting for me. Though I've not had a great many Lenten epiphanies to blog about I think that God is still teaching me good things. Probably the most significant thing I'm learning is how to feast on him while I'm fasting.

The past week or two I've been fighting diligently against a constant bad/angry mood. It's all that I can do to keep from saying or doing something in my angst - something I will likely regret later. My frustration and my "pissyness" (for lack of a better term) seems to be perpetual. I don't want to get into all the reasons for this now, but let us suffice it to say that it is not caused by the Lenten fasting (though a burger would be great right now).

Despite this "funk" the Lord has been my constant help and comfort. The Holy Spirit has sustained me through a few significant things. It seems as if I must constantly feed myself or else I will break. Here is what is sustaining me.

Psalm 103: Bless the Lord, Oh my soul and all that is within me bless his holy name. Bless the Lord, Oh my soul and forget not all his benefits. He forgives all your iniquities and heals all your diseases... The Lord, is compassionate and merciful, long suffering and of great goodness. Bless the Lord Oh my soul.

Though this is not verbatim with the text we sing this Psalm every Sunday in church and is has been my friend and food during this season. My mind and my soul sing it when things are quiet and it is the first thing that I force myself to utter when I feel this angst building.

Psalm 146: Praise the Lord, Oh my soul. I will praise the Lord as long as I live; I will sing praises to my God while I have being. Put not your trust in princes and sons of men, in whom there is no salvation. When his breath departs he returns to his earth. On that very day his plans perish. The Lord, will reign for ever, They God oh Zion to all generations. Now and ever and unto ages of ages Amen.

This psalm is much like the first. although not word for word with the text we sing it every Sunday. It like Psalm 103 often springs forth from within me and sometimes I make is a forced prayer and cry to the Lord.

The Nicene Creed: I won't recap the whole creed here. This is also sung every Sunday at my church and it encourages me and fills my spirit with joy.

Colossians 3:1-4 Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of god. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life, appears then you also will appear with him in glory.

We have been memorizing this passage as a chapel team and it has truly sustained me during these periods. This is incredibly ironic because most (if not all) of my frustration and angst comes during times that I'm doing chapel things. I'm not sure if that means anything except that it's interesting.

The Lord's Prayer: Lord teach me how to pray! This is often my cry and then I dive deep into the prayer our savior taught us to pray. This has become a form of strength and spiritual food.

Various prayers: I also find myself scrambling at night when I'm reflecting on the day or even throughout the day for the Lent Reader that Asbury put out. I find myself flipping through the pages and frantically prayer every prayer from every page. I ask the Lord to teach me how to pray some of the prayer and others just gush out from my being. These prayer are from a variety of places: the book of common prayer, various saints (St. Anselm, St. Ephraim), other Christian figures (Mary Fletcher) and I even wrote a few of them for the reader.



These are the things that are sustaining me. These are the things that the Holy Spirit has placed in my life to feed me and has allowed me to feast on during this great and holy fast. Looking back over this post it seems so rigid and dry. Believe me when I say this is anything but dry. These wells are full of living water which the Lord pours out to me. I drink to partake of the Lord and distance myself from the flesh. I drink often and deep. I feel as though I must drink or I will die! I have to sing the songs of Zion. I have to pray the prayers of God's people. I must recite the symbol of the faith!! The Lord has given us these good gifts to bring life and health and freedom to our souls. This they have brought to my soul. If it wasn't for these gifts of grace I shudder to think how much more offensive and mean I would be. Yes, I am still frustrated and angry but these gifts feed me in this desert. I'm looking at making changes to help eliminate some of this angst but until the Lord leads in those decisions I must rest in these gifts. I must grab them and not let go. I don't care if I am charged with using them as a crutch because it seems as if that's what they are for now.


May our God - the Giver of good gifts grant you all things on which to feast during this holy fast!!

- Ben

Am I allowed to write a creed?

Either way I wrote one. I think this has been a long time coming, but I was sitting in class tonight and a friend charged me to write a creed so I did.

I know it's not the right time in teh Christian Year for this creed as it is surely one that fits into a church season, but nonetheless I shall post it now. I wrote it tonight (10/19) so it's fresh - it still may go through some revisions but here it is.


The Symbol of our Faith as affirmed by the holy bishops in the 1st Ecumenical Council in Wilmore, KY.

I believe in one team, the Yankees, evil upon evil, destroyer of all good in baseball both visible and invisible.

And in George Steinbrenner, the progenitor of evil. Begotten of evil before he came to power. Yankee of Yankee, evil of evil, begotten and not made evil, of once essence with the Yankees, by whom all disaster to baseball is made. Who for us baseball fans and our angst came to power from hell and was made the owner, not by virgin birth, but by dispensation of dirty cash and became owner. And he was caused to flourish under Bud Selig and enacted his power in free agency and won championships. And the fourth year he lost the series, according to the choking of Rivera, and thus descended to playoff abyss and now sits right in the middle of the AL, and lo, he shall rise again with evil to rule the AL: whose reign may have no end.

And in the evil Derek Jeter, the shortstop, the poser of clutch, who proceeds from the Yankees; who with the Yankees, and the Steinbrenner is to be loathed and hated, who plays in New York.

In one Unholy, Catholic and Sinister Fan base. I acknowledge one Nathan’s Hot Dogs for the partaking of evil. I look for the destruction of the empire and the hope of the MLB to come. Amen