Early Baptismal Creeds
The earliest Christian creeds,
also known generally as the Apostles’ Creed,2
were not formulated by the Church councils, and their origins fade into the obscure history of early Christianity. Tradition attributes them to the Twelve Apostles, whereas modern scholarship assumes that they developed from scriptural origins in order to fulfill the need for a baptismal confession.3
Conclusive evidence does not exist to support either claim, but in the light of modern revelation the apostolic origin seems more plausible.4
They existed in various parts of the Christian world in slightly different forms, often as an oral tradition rather than in written form, but always containing the same elemental truths. Among the examples of different versions or derivatives of the Apostles’ Creed which have survived from the 4th
century or earlier are the Old Roman Creed, the Caesarean Creed, the creed of Aquileia, a number of other Italian creeds, the personal creed of Arius, and the creed of Jerusalem.5
The Old Roman Creed
The oldest and most authentic form
of the Apostles’ Creed which has survived is the Old Roman Creed, dated by J.
N. D. Kelly to the second century.6 It is as follows:
“I believe in God the Father
almighty;
“And in Christ Jesus His only Son,
our Lord, Who was born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,7
Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried, on the third day rose again from the dead, ascended to heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, whence He will come to judge the living and the dead;
“And in the Holy Spirit, the holy
Church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh.”8
This creed affirms belief in God
the Father and in his Son Jesus Christ, born of the virgin Mary; it also
expresses firm belief in the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, the day
of judgment, the sacredness of God’s Church, the remission of sins, and the
resurrection of the body. In principle Latter-day Saints can agree with the
basic doctrines contained in this creed.
Because of the influence of Rome
in the West, the Apostles’ Creed developed in other western churches along the
same lines as the Old Roman Creed, with little variation among them. In the
East, however, the creeds developed along slightly different lines, and greater
diversity is seen among the creeds prevalent in the eastern churches. These
creeds are also called “baptismal creeds” or “confessions,” because they were
required of converts to be recited prior to baptism as a formal declaration of
belief and acceptance of the gospel. Their position in the early Christian
Church may roughly be compared to that of the Articles of
Faith in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—although the Articles of
Faith is not used as a confession.
The Arian Controversy
The doctrine of the Godhead,
however, became a source of controversy in the Christian Church at an early
period, and gave rise to a number of regional councils and decrees which need
not be discussed here. This controversy eventually reached its climax in the
early part of the fourth century during the reign of the Emperor Constantine. The
person who was responsible for giving rise to this controversy was an Egyptian
priest by the name of Arius, who proposed a theory of the Godhead which appeared
to be very simple and logical to many of his contemporaries. The basic tenets
of this theory, which has come to be known as Arianism, are as follows:
- That the Father is uncreate, whereas the Son is create. This states that God the Father is the only being who has had an eternal existence and has never been created; all other beings, including the Son, have been brought into existence, or created by the Father out of nothing.
- That the Father is unchangeable, whereas the Son is changeable. This states that the Father, being uncreate and eternal, is the only being whose character and attributes are unchangeable, and will remain forever continually the same. All other beings, including the Son, are subject to the possibility of change; including the possibility that, at some point in the future the Son might, through the exercise of his agency transgress the will of God and fall from grace, in the same way that Satan had done in the preexistence; but the Father was incapable of experiencing such a change.
These two basic tenets carry a
necessary corollary which may not be immediately obvious from the above
statements, but it soon became very obvious to the early Christians who engaged
in a discussion of them: they effectively deprive Jesus Christ of his divinity.
They state that God the Father being uncreate, eternal, and unchangeable, is the
only being who possesses the true attributes of divinity, and can be said to be
divine in the true sense of the term. The Son cannot be said to be truly
divine. Thus Arianism was a heresy which, in a subtle and roundabout way,
declared that Jesus Christ was not God. “Arius’ basic premise was the
uniqueness of God, who is alone self-existent and immutable; … The Son must,
therefore, be deemed a creature who has been called into existence out of
nothing and has had a beginning. Moreover the Son can have no direct knowledge of
the Father since the Son is finite and of a different order of existence.”9
Arius’ teachings had considerable logical appeal for many of his contemporaries. But they also had this fundamental flaw; they contradicted the most fundamental tenet of Christian faith: the divinity of Jesus Christ; and most of his contemporaries recognized this fault.
Arius had a bishop in Alexandria
by the name of Alexander who soon recognized this flaw in Arius’ teachings, and
tried to persuade him that he was wrong, but Arius would not be persuaded.
After that Alexander convened a synod of some of the leading clerics and
theologians in Alexandria to reason with Arius and persuade him that his
doctrines were not correct, but Arius still would not be persuaded. Instead he
continued to preach his doctrines and gain followers. Finally Alexander
summoned a council of the entire Egyptian episcopate, who again condemned Arius’
teachings and excommunicated him. After that Arius went and spread his
doctrines throughout the eastern part of the Roman Empire and gathered a large
following. He had a gift for writing popular hymns and songs, wove his
doctrines into them, and sent them among the populace. The idea that this was an arcane debate among a small number of Greek-minded philosopher/ bishops
acting under the influence of Hellenic culture and Greek philosophy10 is not correct.
The controversy eventually became
so serious that it threatened the disruption of the whole Church. At this time
the Emperor Constantine, who had become a Christian and was favorably disposed
towards the Christian Church, invited the bishops from throughout the Empire to
a council at Nicaea in order to discuss and resolve the problem. This council has
considerable importance in the history of Christianity, because it was the first
ecumenical council of the Christian Church. The council eventually met at
Nicaea in AD 325. At the start of the meeting, out of the 318 bishops present
at the council, only 17 bishops sided with Arius and the rest opposed. After
the deliberations most of these were converted, and only two bishops remained
who did not accept all the decisions of the council.
The Caesarean Creed
The council’s first action was to
discuss and reject the Arian doctrine as a heresy. After that Eusebius, the
great historian, who was the bishop of Caesarea at that time and was also
present at the council, offered the creed of his own church as a starting point
for the next stage of the discussions. This creed, which has come to be known
as the Caesarean Creed, is an adaptation of the ancient Apostles’ Creed and is
as follows:
“We believe in one God, the Father,
almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible;
“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the
Logos [Word] of God, God from God, light from light, life from life, Son only
begotten, first-begotten of all creation, begotten before all ages from the
Father, through Whom all things came into being, Who because of our salvation
was incarnate, and dwelt among men, and suffered, and rose again on the third
day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge living
and dead;
“We believe also in one Holy
Spirit.”11
Of particular interest in this
creed are the addition of the phrases, “God from God, light from light, life
from life” and, “Son only begotten, first-begotten of all creation, begotten
before all ages from the Father,” which are clearly anti-Arian interpolations,
and suggest that this creed may not have been the original creed of the
Caesarean church, but one that was especially prepared by Eusebius for
presentation to the council. Regardless, most Latter-day Saints I think would
agree that this creed also does not contain anything that would necessarily contradict the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The Nicene Creed
The council of Nicaea then took
the Caesarean Creed (or other language like it), and amended some phrases and
added others in order to exclude from it the Arian heresy.12
By focusing on the clauses added by the council, it becomes clear what were the doctrines which the council wanted to teach and to uphold:
“We believe in one God, the Father,
almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible;
“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the
Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is,
from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with
the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down and became incarnate, becoming man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the heavens, will come to judge the living and the dead;
“And in the Holy Spirit.
“But as for those who say, There was when He was not,13
and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or is subject to alteration or change—these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematises.”14
As it is clear from the
highlighted passages, the purpose of issuing the Nicene Creed was to emphasize
the following three fundamental doctrines:
- That Jesus Christ is truly divine;
- That he is uncreate; and
- That he is unchangeable;
“First, the phrase ‘from the
substance of the Father’ was ‘a deliberately formulated counter-blast to the
principle tenet of Arianism, that the Son had been created out of nothing and
had no community of being with the Father.’16
The next anti-Arian clause, ‘true God from true God,’ established that ‘the Son was truly God, in whatever sense the Father was God.’17
The phrase ‘begotten not made,’ responded to the Arian claim that Christ ‘was a creature, a perfect creature admittedly and in a class altogether apart from other creatures, but he had been brought into existence by the divine decree out of nothing.… The orthodox rejoinder was to insist on taking the word ‘begotten’ in its full acceptation.’18 Finally, and most significantly, the words ‘of one substance with the Father’ asserted the orthodox position of ‘the full deity of the Son. The Son, it implied, shared the very being or essence of the Father. He was therefore fully divine: whatever belonged to or characterised the Godhead belonged to or characterised him.’”19
After the council had made its
decision, it sent an epistle to the church in Alexandria (where the controversy
had originated) explaining the conclusions it had reached. This letter is quite
interesting, and again demonstrates what were the real issues in dispute, and
what position the council took in relation to them:
“To the church of the Alexandrians,
holy, by the grace of God, and great, and to the beloved brethren throughout
Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, the bishops assembled at Nicaea, who constitute
the great and holy synod, send greetings in the Lord.
“Since by the grace of God, and at
the summons of our most God-beloved sovereign Constantine, a great and holy
synod has been constituted at Nicaea out of various cities and provinces, it
appeared to us necessary, on all considerations, to send a letter to you from
the sacred synod, in order that you may be able to know what was discussed and
examined, and what was decided and decreed.
“In the first place, examination
was made into the impiety and lewdness of Arius and his followers, in the
presence of our most God-beloved sovereign Constantine; and it was unanimously
decided that his impious opinion should be anathematised, together with all the
blasphemous sayings and expressions which he has uttered in his blasphemies,
affirming that “the Son of God is from what is not” and “there was when he was
not;” saying also that the Son of God, in virtue of his free-will, is capable
of evil and good, and calling him a creature and a work. All these utterances
the holy synod anathematised, not enduring the hearing of so impious, or rather
so demented, an opinion, and such blasphemous sayings.…”20
The doctrine of the divinity of
Christ is the most fundamental tenet of the Christian religion. Without a
knowledge of the divinity of Christ, his unchangeableness, and his eternal
nature it would be impossible for anyone to exercise faith in him for eternal
life and salvation. J. Reuben Clark Jr. has correctly recognized the
historical and theological significance of the Arian controversy:
“For the first Christian
centuries, and following Simon the sorcerer, heretics and heresies, great and
small, sought to distort or wipe out the recognition of Jesus as the Christ.
Time buried the heretics and most of heresies. But one heresy has lived on,
usually in the dark corners of ecclesiastical discussion, but sometimes in the
open. I speak of Arianism that nearly wrecked the Christian Church in the time of Constantine. It is an obscure and shifting doctrine that, shortly put, and in general terms, denies the Godhood of Jesus Christ.”21
Thus Arianism was indeed a heresy,
possibly the most serious that had arisen in Christianity up to that time, and the most controversial.
It struck at the root of the most fundamental tenet of Christian faith: the
divinity of Christ. The council of Nicaea by rejecting it, and upholding the
traditional doctrine of the divinity of Christ, ensured the survival of the
Christian religion as we know it to the present day.
The Council of Nicaea was not
concerned with solving the problem of how to reconcile a trinity in unity and
unity in trinity. That issue arose later. The council was only concerned with
answering the heretical teachings of Arius which denied the divinity of Christ.
The Nicene Creed is not strictly speaking an accurate expression of gospel
doctrine, and it cannot be put on a par with expressions found in modern
revelation. Nevertheless the basic doctrines that it teaches, or tries to
defend, are indeed correct, and broadly in line with the traditional teachings
of the Christian Church as well as with modern revelation.
The Constantinopolitan Creed
The Nicene Creed, however, did not
put an end to the Arian controversy. According to one contemporary, Gregory of
Nyssa, who wrote several decades after Nicaea:
“If you ask anyone in
Constantinople for change, he will start discussing with you whether the Son is
begotten or unbegotten. If you ask for the quality of bread, you get the answer:
‘The Father is greater and the Son is less.’ If you suggest taking a bath you
will be told: ‘There was nothing before the Son was created.’”22
Arianism continued to foment
trouble and give rise to controversy until it became the subject of discussion
in another ecumenical council held in Constantinople in AD 381. This council
issued the Constantinopolitan Creed (also known as the
Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed). This creed again emphasized the doctrines
upheld by Nicaea, and differs from the Nicene Creed mainly in the elimination
of the “anathema” passage at the end, and the enlargement of the passage on the
Holy Spirit. The Constantinopolitan Creed, once further ratified by the council
of Chalcedon of AD 451, became by far the most important and influential creed
in Christendom. In the words of J. N. D. Kelly, “Of all existing creeds it is
the only one for which ecumenicity, or universal acceptance, can plausibly be
claimed.… it was admitted as authoritative in East and West alike from 451
onwards, and it has retained that position, with one significant variation in
its text,23 right down to the present day. So far from displacing it, the Reformation reaffirmed its binding character … It is thus one of the few threads by which the tattered fragments of the divided robe of Christendom are held together.”24 It is as follows:
“We believe in one God, the Father,
almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible;
“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the
only begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, light from
light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the
Father, through Whom all things came into existence, Who because of us men and
because of our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate from the Holy
Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man, and was crucified for us under
Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and rose again on the third day
according to the Scriptures and ascended to heaven, and sits on the right hand
of the Father, and will come again with glory to judge living and dead, of
Whose kingdom there will be no end;
“And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord
and life-giver, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son
is together worshipped and together glorified, Who spoke through the prophets;
in one holy Catholic and apostolic Church. We confess one baptism to the
remission of sins; we look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life
of the world to come. Amen.”25
During the Middle Ages the original
distinction between the Nicene and the Constantinopolitan Creeds were
forgotten,26 and the creed that is currently in use in the liturgies of the churches under the title of the Nicene Creed is in fact the Constantinopolitan Creed. In many respects it is an improvement on the older Nicene Creed, although it still retained the problematic clause, “of one substance with the Father.”
There has been some disagreement
among scholars as to whether the council of Constantinople actually formulated
the Constantinopolitan Creed, or merely adopted an existing creed, or did
neither. Some scholars have completely denied any link between the council and
the creed. J. N. D. Kelly, however, makes a convincing case in favor of
retaining that link,27 although it still remains unclear whether the council actually drafted the creed, or merely adopted an existing one.
The Received Text of the Apostles’ Creed
The last in the line of the early
Christian creeds that we need to examine is once again the Apostles’ Creed. The
version of the Apostles’ Creed that is currently in use in the liturgies of the
established churches is a comparatively late development, and dates from the 6th
or 7th centuries. The history of its evolution and date of its formulation are extremely obscure and difficult to unravel. Modern scholars believe that it evolved in the West, at a time when Rome itself was in decline, and afterwards was borrowed back by Rome. J. N. D. Kelly concludes his final chapter on the subject with these words: “In persuading Rome to accept a new baptismal confession, the church beyond the Alps was merely handing back to her, enriched and improved, the same venerable rule of faith which she herself had compiled in the second century as an epitome of the everlasting gospel.”28
It is as follows:
“I believe in God the Father
almighty, creator of heaven and earth;
“And in Jesus Christ, His only Son,
our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born from the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried, descended to
hell, on the third day rose again from the dead, ascended to heaven, sits at
the right hand of God the Father almighty, thence He will come to judge the
living and the dead:
“I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the remission of sins, the
resurrection of the flesh, and eternal life. Amen.”29
This is the Apostles’ Creed
proper. It is what the Christian world generally understands by the Apostles’
Creed. It is based on the Old Roman Creed, the main differences between them
being the addition of the phrases, “descended into hell [Hades, or spirit
world]” (see Acts 2:31; 1 Peter 3:19–20), and “communion of saints” (see
D&C 107:9), both of which are sound biblical doctrines. The
Apostles’ Creed has over the centuries enshrined itself in the heart of
Christendom as the ultimate expression of the Christian faith, and is today the
most widely used and widely accepted creed in the Christian world; a position
of honor that it rightly deserves. It is one that Latter-day Saints can
subscribe to.
Past Objections to the Early Creeds
Over the years Latter-day Saints
have raised a number of objections to the early Christian creeds (in particular
the Nicene Creed), of which the following may briefly be mentioned:
1. Lack of Apostolic
authority by the councils.
The lack of Apostolic authority by
the councils, and the power to receive revelation, is not a reasonable
justification for rejecting or condemning the early creeds, or the fundamental
truths which they contain. If the Pope today advocated some righteous
principles, we would not condemn it just because the Pope is not a prophet.
The same rule applies to the Nicene Creed. There can be no question that the
basic doctrines that the Nicene Creed teaches, or tries to defend, are indeed
correct, and broadly in line with the traditional teachings of the Christian
Church as well as with modern revelation; and to that extent, and within the
context of its historical setting, it deserves our respect.
The council of Nicaea made a
number of other important decisions which are often overlooked. They enacted
some twenty laws, or canons as they are called, for the government of the church
which are extremely wise, wholesome and good laws, and promote righteous
principles.30 Bearing in mind that “that which is righteous cometh down from above, from the Father of lights” (D&C 67:9); and that “everything which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; …” (Moroni 7:14–18); then we must conclude that the council of Nicaea was motivated by a good spirit, not by an unrighteous spirit.
2. The role of the
Emperor Constantine.
The role of the Emperor
Constantine in calling the council, and presiding over it is overstated. What
is important is the issues which were in dispute, the position which the
council took in relation to them, and the doctrines which it finally upheld and
promulgated in the creed. Constantine merely acted as a catalyst in bringing
the bishops together in a council to discuss and resolve the problem, and that
decision was no doubt providential. Had it not been for Constantine the council
might not have been held, Arianism might have triumphed, and that might have
“wrecked the Christian Church” as J. Reuben Clark has rightly observed.
It has been said that Constantine
compromised the independence of the council by involving himself in the
discussions. There may be some truth in that, but it is overstated. For
example one often reads in the literature that the phrase, “of one substance
with the Father” was added to the creed at the suggestion of Constantine. But
that is a little misleading. There are two expressions in the creed affirming
that the Father and the Son are of the same substance (in fact three, if one
includes the same doctrine negatively expressed in the anathema passage at the
end). It is only the second phrase (expressed by a single Greek word homoousios) that was added at the suggestion of Constantine; the rest were put there by the council.31
All the historical evidence suggests that the language of the creed belonged to the council and not to Constantine.
Constantine’s decision to hold the
council was pragmatic, rather than religious or theological. The Arian
controversy in the East had become so serious that it threatened the disruption
of the Empire, not just of the Church. Constantine’s main concern was that the
controversy was resolved, not how it was resolved. How it was resolved was left
to the council, not to Constantine.
3. Of one substance
with the Father.
A more serious criticism that can
be made of the Nicene Creed concerns the use of the unscriptural and alien
expression, “of one substance with the Father” in describing the relationship
between the Father and the Son. However in considering the use of this term, it
should be borne in mind that the Arians had expressed their heretical views in
exactly the opposite language. They declared that the Father and the Son were not “of the same substance”.32 In his Thalia Arius had sung, “He is not equal to Him [the Father], nor for that matter of the same substance … the Father is alien to the Son in substance.”33 The Arians argued that the Father was an uncreated being who was essentially unique and ineffable, and could not even be fully comprehended by the Son; whereas the Son was a created being (out of nothing), and the two natures were completely incompatible and irreconcilable, and of a different essence or substance; and the best way that that could be answered was to state the opposite—that they are of the same substance.
If a heretic arose in the Church in our day, and declared that the Father and the Son are not of the same
substance, and therefore the Son is not truly divine, the best way that that
could be answered would be to say that they are of the same substance. It would be difficult to do it in some other way. The council initially wanted to use purely scriptural expressions in the formulation of the creed; but they discovered that whatever scriptural phrase they employed, the Arians managed to twist it around to make it conform to their own views. In the end they were left with no choice but to negate the very terms that the Arians themselves were using.34
It has been suggested by some
scholars that by the phrase, “of one substance with the Father” they meant that
the Father and the Son were numerically identical. But that assumption is not
justified. All the evidence indicates that that is not in fact what the council
originally meant by it.35 What they meant was simply to assert that the Son was truly divine, in the same sense that the Father was divine; and to negate the Arian heresy which stated the opposite. It is true, however, that the phrase was susceptible of that interpretation; and ultimately that is the interpretation that the Christians put upon it in subsequent centuries; and to that extent it may be regarded as a fault.
4. Creation out of
nothing.
One criticism that is sometimes
made by Latter-day Saints of the early creeds is that they teach that God made
everything out of nothing, which is not really true. Such an expression is not
found in any of the early creeds that we have examined. The only thing that the
early creeds teach is that God is the creator of “all” things, which is a
scriptural expression (e.g. Proverbs 26:10; John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6),
and is confirmed by modern revelation (e.g. 2 Nephi 2:14; Mosiah 3:8;
5:15; D&C 93:10). We can only judge the early creeds on the basis of the doctrines
that they actually contain, not on the basis of every true or false doctrine
that the early Christians may or may not have believed, but which they did not
write into the creed.
5. Confusing the Nicene
Creed with the Athanasian Creed.
Another mistake that has been made
by some Latter-day Saint writers in the past has been to confuse the Athanasian Creed with
the Nicene Creed, and condemn the Nicene Creed for the faults of the Athanasian
Creed.36 That is of course quite unjustified. The two are quite unrelated, and bear no resemblance with one another.
6. Creeds “an
abomination in his sight”.
The words of the Lord to Joseph
Smith, that the creeds of the churches at the time were “an abomination in his
sight” (JS–H 1:19), and other similar statements made by Joseph Smith, still
need to be explained. For example in one place the Prophet categorically
states, “I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations.”37
To answer them correctly, they need to be examined within their cultural and historical background, and the different meanings that are in fact attached to the word “creed.” It should be remembered that Joseph Smith was constantly being harassed and persecuted by the Christian churches of his day, who were all Protestant Evangelical churches. Joseph Smith often speaks scathingly of these churches, and uses the word “creed” (loosely) to condemn their beliefs and teachings.
After the Protestant Reformation
of the 16th century, the various Protestant churches which splintered off from that great schism produced a wide range of creeds and “confessions” whose main functions were to distinguish the many Protestant sects from one another. They were often lengthy and elaborate affairs, and bore no resemblance or relationship to the early Christian creeds, and cannot be properly regarded as extensions, continuations, or developments of them. By the time of Joseph Smith these Protestant declarations of faith had multiplied without number. The following quote from the preface to the first edition of the
Doctrine and Covenants, published in 1835, shows that Joseph Smith was aware of this phenomenon, and saw it as a problem: “There may be an aversion in the minds of some against receiving anything purporting to be articles of religious faith, since there are so many now
extant; …” (emphasis added). Evidence suggests that when Joseph Smith condemns the “creeds” of the churches, he is actually referring to this welter of Protestant declarations, and not to the simple creeds of the early Christian Church. Furthermore, the context makes it reasonably clear that when the Lord condemned the “creeds” of the churches of the time, that he was also referring to the same phenomenon. He was not referring to every single creed in Christendom. For example I find it difficult to accept that the Lord would want to speak of the Apostles’ Creed in those terms, which is still in use in the Catholic Church, and in most other Christian denominations. There is nothing in the Apostles’ Creed which could be considered “abominable” in the sight of the Lord. The doctrines that it teaches are basically sound.
It should also be borne in mind
that the word “creed” has more than one definition or meaning. It does not just mean a “written
statement of belief.” It can also mean simply someone’s “faith,” or basic
religious convictions. It can even be used in a non-religious context. We can
speak of someone’s “political creed” for example, by which is meant whatever political ideology he happens to believe in. In the First Vision the
Lord is specifically condemning the “professors” of religion whom Joseph Smith had encountered in the religious revival that he speaks of. It is their “creeds” that are specifically being condemned (JS–H 1:19), not the entire creeds of Christendom—and certainly not the early Christian creeds, which are the subject of our discussion.
Justifiable Reasons for Not Using the Creeds
Can there be any legitimate
reasons for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints not wanting to
adopt any of the early Christian creeds? I believe there are such reasons, but
they are not the ones that are usually given. The real reasons in my opinion
are, firstly, that Latter-day Saints already have the same doctrines expressed
in a purer, simpler, more sublime and inspired language: “We
believe in God the Eternal Father, and in his Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy
Ghost.”38 The Prophet Joseph Smith’s answer to the question, “What are the fundamental principles of your religion?” echoes the style and content of the Apostles’ Creed: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets concerning Jesus Christ, that he died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended to heaven.”
39 That is basically saying the same thing as the Apostles’ Creed.
Secondly, the early Christian
creeds by reason of historical necessity use vocabulary and phraseology that is
no longer appropriate for the new dispensation. For example, both the
Constantinopolitan and the Apostles’ Creeds express belief in the “holy
Catholic Church.” In its proper historical setting that is a perfectly
acceptable expression (catholic simply means universal); but today the word
Catholic has lost its original meaning of “universal,” and become the title of
a particular Christian denomination. The advent of the new dispensation
necessitates a fresh formulation.
Similarly, both the Nicene and the
Constantinopolitan Creeds were written in response to the great Arian
controversies of the 4th century which is no longer an issue today. It seems incongruent to adopt for the new dispensation an ancient Christian creed burdened with anti-Arian overtones which are no longer an issue, when we already have the same doctrines expressed in a more sublime and inspired language dictated by the Holy Spirit through a modern prophet. The phrase, “of one substance with the Father” is an unpalatable relic of the anti-Arian controversies of the 4th century which we have no obligation to adhere to.
It should also be borne in mind
that the greatest strength of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests in the fact that
it is a new dispensation of the gospel, and as such it is not dependent on an earlier revelation for its testimony; it has its own. Other Christian denominations are entirely dependent on an earlier revelation for their testimony; but not so with the restored Church of Jesus Christ today. It is therefore not inconsistent with the theological position of the Church in our time that it should be independent in its creedal declarations.
None of this, however, means that
Latter-day Saints should completely reject or condemn the early Christian creeds. They deserve to be revered within their historical settings and held in respect. They represent “old wine” which must be preserved in “old bottles.” Latter-day Saints have the “new wine” which must be kept in “new bottles” (Matthew 9:16–17). “Old wine” is not bad; it is just old! It therefore needs to be preserved in “old bottles.” Other than that they have a hallowed place in the history of Christianity. The Lord has also said, “Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old” (Matthew 13:52). Like the good “householder,” and as true disciples of Jesus Christ, Latter-day Saints should be able to bring forth out of their treasure things “new and old.”
The word “creed” may not form part
of the theological vocabulary of Latter-day Saints in our time; but that
does not mean that we do not have “creed” anymore. The Articles
of Faith has all the attributes of a true creed. It is a fully-fledged creed—but without being called such.40
Conclusion
With the benefit of hindsight, and
in the light of modern revelation we are now able to look back at the events
at Nicaea, and ask if they made any serious mistakes. I believe that the biggest
mistake they made was to interpolate the anti-Arian clauses into the ancient
Christian creed. They did not need to do that. They could just as easily have
issued a separate statement affirming the full deity of Jesus Christ, while at
the same time rejecting the Arian heresy as strongly as they needed to, and
using whatever turn of phrase they considered most appropriate to do it with.
They should have left the creed alone. That is how earlier controversies
concerning the Godhead had been settled by Church councils. Their decision to
interpolate the creed instead of issuing a separate statement was unprecedented, and had some
undesirable consequences. Firstly, they have burdened that ancient and hallowed
creed with some dubious and unscriptural terms which originally formed no part
of it, and which have remained with it ever since. Secondly, they set a dangerous
precedent for other religious factions with their own ideas to do the same,
which is what actually happened. In the decades that followed Nicaea, the
Christian creed became a bone of contention among various religious factions
each of whom felt that they had a mandate to reformulate it to make it conform
to their own views.41 This frenzy of creed making gradually subsided until, at the council of Chalcedon of AD 451, the Constantinopolitan Creed emerged as the single unifying creed of Christendom.
It is worth remembering, however,
that in spite of the difficulties of the 4th
and 5th centuries, Christianity did not completely lose sight of its roots. The Apostles’ Creed continued to survive and thrive within the Christian Church, along side the Nicene and the Constantinopolitan Creeds, and eventually it emerged preeminent. Thus Christianity, after a long and tortuous history, has harked back to its roots.
─────────
Notes
1 The Athanasian Creed is neither an ecumenical creed (written by the church councils), nor does it have the pedigree of the Apostles’ Creed. It is an obscure document whose true authorship, and the time when it was written, is unknown. Tradition attributes it to Athanasius; but according to the best of modern scholarship that tradition is now discredited. Its style and form of presentation also departs from the norm, and amounts to an anomaly in the category of the early creeds. It crept into the liturgies of the churches during the Middle Ages, and has since been abandoned by most Christian denominations, and even in the Catholic Church it has been marginalized. It is also not included in J. N. D. Kelly’s book on early Christian creeds, which is a landmark study on the subject.
2 A certain amount of confusion exists in the literature about the terminology applied to the early creeds. The version of the Apostles’ Creed that is currently in use in the liturgies of the churches is a comparatively late development, and dates from before AD 700; and the term “Apostles’ Creed” is often used in the literature to refer exclusively to this latter version which is in use in the liturgies of the churches today. A similar confusion exists about the “Nicene Creed,” which will be discussed presently.
3 For a discussion of the apostolic tradition as well as the scriptural origins see J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 3rd
ed. [England: Longman Group Limited, 1972; New York: Longman Inc.], pp. 1–22.
4 The scholarly assumptions, plausible though they may sound, are speculative, and no clear link has been established; whereas the Apostolic tradition is very strong, and has a lot to commend it in the light of modern revelation. This tradition, as preserved by Tyrannius Rufinus (AD 404), is as follows:
“The
Apostles, he [Rufinus] relates, having been equipped at Pentecost with the
ability to speak different languages, were instructed by the Lord to journey
forth and proclaim God’s word to the several nations of the world: ‘As they
were therefore on the point of taking leave of each other, they first settled
an agreed norm for their future preaching, so that they might not find
themselves, widely separated as they would be, giving out different doctrines
to the people they invited to believe in Christ. So they met together in one spot
and, being filled with the Holy Spirit, compiled this brief token, as I have
said, of their future preaching, each making the contribution he thought fit;
and they decreed that it should be handed out as standard teaching to
believers.’ Rufinus did not invent the story he quotes. On the contrary, it
represented in his eyes an ancient and hallowed tradition.” (Early
Christian Creeds. pp. 1–2)
There
are several factors which make this tradition a strong one. Firstly, Rufinus
says that the purpose of the creed, as originally intended by the Twelve
Apostles, was to serve as a standard in doctrine. Modern scholars assume that it developed in order to fulfill the need for a baptismal confession. But Rufinus, who was much closer to the time and ought to know better, says that that was not its original purpose. This agrees with current practice among Latter-day Saints, where a “confession” is not used. The Articles of Faith is intended to serve as a standard in doctrine, not as a “confession”. It could be used as a confession, but that is not what it was originally designed for. Secondly, Rufinus’ assertion that the Apostles were given the gift of tongues at Pentecost for the purpose of preaching the gospel to the nations agrees with the teachings of Joseph Smith on the subject [Joseph Fielding Smith, comp., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, repr. 1976], pp. 149, 195, 247–48; hereafter referred to as Teachings]. Thirdly, it seems plausible that the Twelve Apostles, prior to their departure on their several missions, should meet together in council to agree upon the word of God which should form the basis of their teachings; and then to formulate a standard of doctrine on that basis to be handed down to posterity for the benefit of the whole church.
5 For a discussion of these early creeds see Early Christian Creeds, pp. 167–92.
6 Ibid., p. 127.
7 This clause, and other similar clauses found in the early Christian creeds are based on Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:35; by which the Christians have always understood that Jesus was miraculously conceived in the womb by the divine power of God (i.e. by the power of the Holy Ghost; see Mosiah 15:3; Alma 7:10); and that is a true Christian doctrine.
8 Ibid., p. 102.
9 Encyclopædia Britannica, 15th ed. 1989.
10 A view expressed by some Latter-day Saint writers in the past; see for example Mark E. Petersen, The Unknown God [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1978], p. 46.
11 Early Christian Creeds, p. 182.
12 This is the traditional view. Modern scholars have reasons for maintaining that the Nicene Creed was not derived from the Caesarean Creed, but from another eastern type creed (see Early Christian Creeds, pp. 227–30); but the correctness or incorrectness of that thesis does not affect our present discussion.
13 The Arians argued that God the Father had created the Son before all other things, including time itself; therefore they had invented the phrase, “There was when he was not,” instead of saying, “There was a time when he was not.”
14 Ibid., pp. 215–16.
15 For more interesting scriptures bearing on the subject see references under GOD, ETERNAL NATURE OF in the Topical Guide, and also in the index to the Triple Combination in the standard works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
16 Early Christian Creeds, p. 235.
17 Ibid., pp. 236–37.
18 Ibid., p. 237.
19 Ibid., p. 238.
20 Henry Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church, 2nd
ed. [London: Oxford University Press, 1963], pp. 57–58.
21 J. Reuben Clark Jr., tract, Our Bible. Emphasis added.
22 Tim Dowley, ed., The History of Christianity [England: Lion Publishing, rev. ed. 1990], p. 176.
23 This variation consists of the addition of the phrase “and from the Son” (filioque) to the original clause, “Who proceeds from the Father” by the western churches regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit, also known as the doctrine of the “double procession.” The eastern church has retained the primitive form of the creed.
24 Early Christian Creeds, p. 296.
25 Ibid., pp. 297–98.
26 Ibid., p. 301.
27 Ibid., pp. 305–31.
28 Ibid., p. 434.
29 Ibid., p. 369.
30 The following examples of the first three canons issued by the council of Nicaea are quoted from Dean Dudley, History of the Council of Nice [New York: Eckles, 1925], pp. 98–100:
1.
Forbidding the promotion in the church of self-made eunuchs:
Against
Ordaining a Self-Mutilator.
The language of the Council’s decree was, “If any has been deformed by physicians on account of a physical infirmity, or has been mutilated by barbarians, he may, nevertheless, remain among the clergy. But, if any, being sane, has dismembered himself, it becomes necessary, both that he should be prohibited from being established among the clergy, and that no such one should be successively promoted.” However, if the evidence showed clearly that the mutilation was not a self-infliction, but was done by certain others (either barbarians or masters) daring to effect it, the decree specified, that, if they had come in most worthy persons in other respects, the rule should be to receive them into the clerical order.*
2.
Forbidding the hasty ordination of new converts to Christianity:
Admission
and Promotion of Gentiles.
“Whereas, very many, either compelled by necessity or otherwise, had acted against the welfare of the church by following the former rule, namely, that persons having only recently acceded to the church from the life of the Gentile, might, after being instructed a little while, be led to the spiritual bath, and at the same time that they were baptized, might be advanced to the episcopate or presbytery.” Therefore the Council decreed it would be most agreeable to their wishes that this rule should be dispensed with, and not be followed in respect to any others. For they thought “there was need of time, both for one who was to be catechized, and, after baptism, as much more time, for his probation.
For
it is a wise saying of the apostle, as follows:
“‘Not
a novice, lest through pride he fall into condemnation, and into the snare of
the devil.’ If hereafter a cleric is guilty of a grave offence, proved by two
or three witnesses, he must resign his spiritual office. Any one who acts
against this ordinance, and ventures to be disobedient to this great Synod, is
in danger of being expelled from the clergy.”
3.
Forbidding the clergy to keep female friends in their houses.
Against
the Admission of Women as Sorores.
“The Council decreed that it should not be permitted to a bishop, or to a presbyter, or to a deacon to have the legal privilege of introducing to his house, or receiving a woman introduced by others, unless she were his mother or sister, or aunt, or, at least, such as had escaped suspicion.”
In
the first ages of the Church, some Christians, clergymen and laymen, contracted
a sort of spiritual marriage with unmarried ladies, so that they lived together;
and there was a friendly connection between them for their mutual religious
advancement. They were known by the name of subintroducta, or the Greek suneisaktoi, and sisters. That which began in the spirit, however, in many cases, ended in the flesh. —Hefele.
────────
*See
Matt. xix. 12. Many, in those early times, and among them even the great Origen
[in his early youth], construing this passage literally, emasculated themselves
in order to avoid temptation. [Original footnote.]
31 The reason why the use of this particular word (homoousios) had become controversial at the council was that it had been rejected once before by an earlier church council held at Antioch in AD 268 to deal with the heresy of Paul of Samosata, and some of the delegates at the council were uneasy about using it for fear least they might be going against the decision of an earlier church council. But the word tends to be ambiguous, and is capable of more than one shade of meaning, and other delegates at the council favored using it in order to finally nail down Arianism. The exact minutes of the proceedings of the council has not survived, and it is not known exactly what did take place at the council, and a lot of ambiguity has always surrounded that event; but it would appear that the decision of Constantine to put his weight behind the latter group was the deciding factor in persuading the council to use this particular word in formulating the creed. For further discussion see Early Christian Creeds, pp. 238–39; 247–54.
32 Ibid., p. 236.
33 Ibid., p. 236.
34 Ibid., pp. 235–36.
35 J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th
rev. ed. [London: Adam & C. Black, 1977; New York: Harper, 1978], pp. 232–37. See also endnote 5 in the second article in this series, “The Christological Controversies of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries Following the Council of Nicaea.”
36 See for example response from Joseph Fielding Smith in Selections
From Answers to Gospel Questions—A Course of Study for the Melchizedek
Priesthood Quorums of the Church—1972–1973, pp. 13–15; Mark E. Petersen, The Unknown God [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1978], p. 44; and article by Thomas S. Monson in the First Presidency Message, The Ensign, December 1990. In the latter article, President Monson does not specifically mention or quote from the Athanasian Creed (as the others do); but it is evident that he has made the same kind of mistake that Joseph Fielding Smith and Mark E. Petersen had made. He has confused the Athanasian Creed with the Nicene Creed, and condemns the Nicene Creed for the faults of the Athanasian Creed. The Nicene Creed is not ambiguous, mysterious, or incomprehensible. Its authors never intended it to be mysterious or incomprehensible, therefore they could not have been “proud” that they had made it so (as he claims).
37 Teachings, p. 327. See Gary P. Gillum, “Creeds,” in ed. Daniel H. Ludlow, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 5 vols. [New York: Macmillan, 1992], 1:343.
38 Article 1, the Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
39 Teachings, p. 121.
40 What the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not have is a liturgical creed. In the traditional churches the creeds form an essential part of their liturgy, or prescribed form of worship. They are recited perpetually during Mass, or Communion, or other church services. The worship of the Latter-day Saints is characterized by a complete absence of what may be properly regarded as a written liturgy. The Articles of Faith can only be described as a “creed” in so far as it serves as an inspired summary of Church doctrine, and it is also canonized; but it plays no liturgical role in the worship of Latter-day Saints, and it is not recited during church services.
41 Early Christian Creeds, pp. 263–74.
