A Nicene Thread:

I confess the Nicene creed. I believe all Christians should.

However, I've seen a lot of Nicene+ rhetoric recently. By this I mean: you must believe the Nicene creed *in addition* to other metaphysical and hermeneutical commitments to *really* be Nicene.

But this doesnt seem right to me. *Even if* the creed needs these to remain consistent.

Why?

Because I believe we confess creeds and confessions--not creeds and confessions plus whatever else we think is necessary for them.

While I think it is right to debate what is necessary for the claims made in the creeds/confessions, I think these are external debates to affirming the creed/confession itself. The litmus test should not be creed+ but creed.

To be clear: This doesnt mean we can make the creed say whatever we want it to. You are required to affirm what it actually means. But must I import anachronistic metaphysical schemes or practice the exact same hermeneutic (which is varied among the Fathers) to affirm it? No.

To be clear as well: I dont think its a good idea to affirm metaphysical schemes or hermeneutical principles that lead to incoherence in the creed. But if that person still affirms the creed, I take them at their word. We all hold false beliefs somewhere.

However, I still think there are metaphysical and hermeneutical commitments that are much more at home with the teaching of the creeds/confessions and that we should affirm these. But that is different than claiming they are *necessary* for others to believe to affirm the creed.

For example: I'm happy to point out differing background presuppositions that lead to problems for affirming the creed. I think this is good and necessary work. But I refuse to force others to affirm things outside the creed if they want to affirm the creed.

Moreover, I don’t think there is only one set of metaphysical or hermeneutical beliefs that can generate and be consistent with Nicaea. Many claim there is only one and it so happens to be their system yet they never show how others conflict. This is just theological propaganda.

When we start adding claims to the creed we create new boundaries. New creeds. This is a gateway to doctrinal maximalism that bars genuine creedal affirmers! It isnt ecumenical. It isnt catholic. Its hyper fundamentalist.

If these ideas were necessary, they would be in the creed