This is the first p
ost on what will probably be a series on the Nicene Creed that will lead up to, and continue from the conference at Beeson Divinity School. I’m acrtually working on another peice right now, but came across this quote from Pelikin which just had to be posted.
“For the “will to believe” it so relentless — or, if I may put it this way, so insidious — that when it is denied or frustrated and when religious toleration, instead of being “justified by faith” (Rom 3.28), is justified by non-faith, belief will (in Dostoevsky’s phrase) go around the locked doors and sneak in through a window, substituting Wotan for the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, and replacing the Shema, andNicene Creed with the creed of Blut und Erde.” - Jaroslav Pelikan
Why do we need to confess what the church has always confessed about the nature of God and his redemption? Because we are “prone to wander” but unlike the popular song, we do not often feel it when we do. This is around the point where some of my less “confessional” friends will tell me that we do not need a creed, because we have the bible. The problem with this, I think, is that while we are believer/priests, we are not apostles. By the way, exactly NONE of the “apostolic fathers” considered themselves to be apostles. Every crack-pot heretic and most inventors of religion, read the bible, use the bible, and refer to the bible for their understanding. Some of them also claim to be apostles :> The key word there is understanding. The early church (second century) used whatever scripture they had (many old testament documents and perhaps some new testament writings that were beginning to circulate.) yet the primary thrust of the argument is what do the biblical writers MEAN. The early church was very interested in carefully handling and passing on the understanding of scripture received from apostolic teaching on the meaning of the text. Read more…
