Nicene and apostles' creeds

[Chad Duskin]

I have a quick question that I was not able to answer when asked. The Nicene Creed does not contain the line descended into Hell in it. What is the Orthodox position on that statement? When was it added to (or dropped from?) the Creed?

Thank you!

Chad Duskin

[Fr Averky]

"Descended into hell" refers to the fact that Christ descended into Hades, the Place of Silence, for the souls of all the just, from the fall of Adam until Christ descended to free them, were denied heaven. The theology of this thought can be found int the Paschal services and the Paschal sermon of St. John Chrystostom. The icon of the event is used on Pascha, and is on the wall of classicly painted Orthodox churches. The icon depicts Christ holding the hand of Adam, and sometimes Eve; behind this grouping are Holy Prophets, Kings, and so on. Beneath Christ's feet are a two pieces of a broken door, chains, nails, and sometimes, the Evil One bound in chains. I believe that the icon of Christ coming out of the tomb is more recent, but of that I am not sure.The Orthodox Church commonly does not make use of the Apostle's Creed. As a young Roman Catholic, I had to memorize it, but I don't know if Roman Catholics recite it any more, since I left that church 37 years ago. The Orthodox Church uses the Nicene Creed, which was formulated at the First Ecumenical Council in 325 .A.D., and wich was further confirmed the First Council of Constantinople, which I think was in 389, A.D., which once and for all settled the Arian heresy.

[Richard McBride]

"The following is a translation of the creed which the council drafted and required all the bishops present to sign:

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, this is, from the substance fo 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 becasue of our salvation came down and became incarnate, becoming man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead;

And the Holy Spirit.

But as for those who say, There was when He was not, 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 from a different hypostasis or substance, or is created, or is subject to alteration or change -- these the Catholic Church anathematizes."

Such was the original language (translated), according to J. N. D. Kelly, "Early Christian Doctrines". [Revised Edition; 1976]

No going down to hell here.

But it indicates how much slippage creeps in during translation. And the Greek Church in America (under the Ecumenical Patriarch) enjoys great freedoms in these translations -- as many Greek Orthodox will recognize, comparing their version of the Creed with other English speaking Churches, and then with this one above.

richard mcb

PS Doesn't "descended into hell" come from the Apostles' Creed?

[Richard Leigh]

Yes, "descended into hell," comes from, or rather is in, the Apostles' Creed.

The Apostles' Creed grew out of the Baptismal creed of the Church at Rome.The most difficult article for that church to "swallow" during this Creed's development was that Christ "died". All churches had their own such creeds. They are simple statements of what the new believer is being baptized into.

The Nicene Creed was formulated from baptismal creeds of some churches in the East, I think Caesaria was its major source, but I'm not sure.

The church as a whole, i.e., the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church agreed to the definition of Nicea such that it's is the Creed of the Whole Church, to which, since its enlargement at the (first) council of Constantinople,nothing is to be added. This is not to say that its articles cannot be "exegeted" or explained in terms addressing modern concerns and issues regarding one's walk of faith, as Patriarch Jeremias II did in explicating it to the Reformation scholars of Tuebingen in the 16th Century.

Richard

[Nikos]

Dear members of this forum,

Could someone give me a little history on the Apostles' Creed? I'm especially curious about (a) how, when, and where it developed, (b) how it's different from the Nicene creed, and (c) why we don't use it in the Orthodox church.

Thank you all so much in advance for your help!!

Nikos

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Nikos,

The Apostles' Creed is not used in the East because there is an agreement among Churches that no other Creed is to be used but the Nicene Creed. Originally, as I stated earlier (see above) each local church had its own baptismal creed, but when the church met together in council first Nicaea, then Constantinople, etc., it was decided that all would use the resultant Creed.

But, then the filioque controversy arose from the west around the time of Charlemagne. Western substitution of the Apostles' Creed which avoids the dificulty surrounding the sending and procession of the second two persons of the Trinity. Lutherans use it except for Communion Sunday (yes, most Lutheran Churches do not have communion every Sunday).
The following information comes from an old booK: Understanding the Apostles' Creed, Donals McFayden, New York, Macmillan Co Pub., 1927.

(From Chapter 1, " The History of the Apostles' Creed") There is evidence that something called an "Apostolic Symbol" at the city (Church) of Rome was in existence by about the end of the fourth century, with the reputation of, to that time, "never having been changed." It is called "the Old Roman Symbol" today, and it seems that it was expanded after than time. There were, over time, several additions and amendations, and the current Apostles' Creed is an attempt to preserve all the amendations.

There are various theories as to where and when it was originally composed, some favoring Rome, others, Lyons. It is believed to have been composed in the eighth or late senventh century, and presumed to have been in a form favored by Charlamagne. There is evidence to suggest that in the seventh century the Roman Church used the Nicene Creed for its baptismal creed. It was in 812 that Charlemagne sent a questionnaire to all his bishops regarding each of their baptismal practices and it is taken as a "fair guess" that he did so seeking uniformity. A statement in the book that "it was composed before Arianism was ever heard of" can only be in referrence to the Old Roman Symbol. Also, it seems to have been origninally written in Greek.

Richard

[Mark Kern]

>Dear Richard, > > Rufinus of Aquilea (4th Century) wrote a commentary on the > Apostles' Creed at the request of Bishop Laurentius. From the > Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series V. 3, Rufinus says: >2. Our forefathers have handed down to us the tradition, that, after the >Lord’s ascension, when, through the coming of the Holy Ghost, tongues of >flame had settled upon each of the Apostles, that they might speak diverse >languages, so that no race however foreign, no tongue however barbarous, >might be inaccessible to them and beyond their reach, they were commanded >by the Lord to go severally to the several nations to preach the word of >God. Being on the eve therefore of departing from one another, they first >mutually agreed upon a standard of their future preaching, lest haply, >when separated, they might in any instance vary in the statements which >they should make to those whom they should invite to believe in Christ. >Being all therefore met together, and being filled with the Holy Ghost, >they composed, as we have said, this brief formulary of their future >preaching, each contributing his several sentence to one common summary: >and they ordained that the rule thus framed should be given to those who >believe. >To this formulary, for many and most sufficient reasons, they gave the >name of Symbol. For Symbol (kumbolon) in Greek answers to both >“Indicium” (a sign or token) and “Collatio” (a joint contribution made by >several) in Latin. For this the Apostles did in these words, each >contributing his several sentence. It is called “Indicium” or “Signum,” a >sign or token, because, at that time, as the Apostle Paul says, and as is >related in the Acts of the Apostles, many of the vagabond Jews, pretending >to be apostles of Christ, went about preaching for gain’s sake or their >belly’s sake, naming the name of Christ indeed, but not delivering their >message according to the exact traditional lines. The Apostles >therefore prescribed this formulary as a sign or token by which he who >preached Christ truly, according to Apostolic rule, might be recognized. >Finally, they say that in civil wars, since the armor of both sides is >alike, and the language the same, and the custom and mode of warfare the >same, each general, to guard against treachery, is wont to deliver to his >soldiers a distinct symbol or watchword — in Latin “signum” or “indicium” >— so that if one is met with, of whom it is doubtful to which side he >belongs, being asked the symbol (watchword), he discloses whether he is >friend or foe. And for this reason, the tradition continues, the Creed is >not written on paper or parchment, but is retained in the hearts of the >faithful, that it may be certain that no one has learnt it by reading, as >is sometimes the case with unbelievers, but by tradition from the Apostles. > > The above would indicate that the Apostles' Creed had Apostolic > origin. But its wording was not precise enough to counteract the > heresies of Arius and others regarding the two natures of > Christ. Therefore as you stated, it was replaced in the East by the > Nicene Creed. > >Your brother and servant, >Mark

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Mark,

Thank you for that. I am aware of Rufinus' contribution, it was the basis of what I presented. IMO he took his report as factual and believed it as handed down to him.I do not for several reasons but the major one is that I do not believe his explanation of how the gift of tongues worked is accurate, but is the kind of interpretation of recorded events as might seem likely to someone of his century somewhat after the historical largely dying out of the giving of that gift. I do believe that there is a historical basis for what I take to be a pious tradition. I believe that all original baptismal creeds of the various local churches stem from the Lord's command to the apostles as recorded at the end of the Gospel According to St. Matthew to be going and descipling all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, teching them to do all things which I have commanded you." This record itself provided a needed commentary and explanation of the term used by St. Luke in his Acts of the Apostles' "Baptized in the name Jesus." It was also a corrective on any misunderstanding regarding the Trinity and the correct form for Baptism. We note that St. Paul asked the 12 Ephesian converts of Apollos if they had received the Holy Spirit when they had believed (i.e., were baptized" and they explained that they had never even heard of "the Holy Spirit" but had only been baptized into the name of John the Baptist. Apollos' preaching is said to have been correct about Jesus, but it lacked baptism into Him. All this to say that whe St. Luke records that St. Paul then baptizd them "intothe Name of Jesus" he ment according to the formula recorded in St. Matthew.IOW, St. Paul could tell something was lacking in their not haveing heard of the Holy Spirit which would automatically correct by Christian baptism (Not only whould He be heard of, but his opperations would desecend upon them, as they did.)

It is the gospel of Jesus Christ which is the same among all the apostles and of which all of the baptismal creeds of the various local churches, founded by one or another of the apostles, summarize. St. Paul indeed mentions hyper-apostles or pseudo-apostles which "preach themselves" instead of Christ, and their falshood can be told by the gospel they preach. These were Jewish gnostics, most likely.

Such is the grain of truth behind Rufinus' pious tradition, IMO.

Yours,

Richard

[Mark Kern]

Dear Richard,

There are several things you mentioned that I’d like to discuss with you.

First is the historical use of the Gift of Tongues. Do you have the CD version of the Ante-Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers? If not, you can get a copy from www.ageslibrary.com (http://www.ageslibrary.com) for about $80. If you have a copy, try a search through each of the 38 volumes on the word “tongues”. I tried that and found no mention at all of anyone besides Corinth in c. 55 AD (when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians) that spoke in tongues during the meetings of the Church. There are other references to the Gift of Tongues as being used for evangelism, which was very necessary for the Apostles to have traveled where they did. Consider just the 15 different languages mentioned in Acts 2:9-11. The Apostle Paul evangelized at least 7 of those areas himself. It was necessary for him to speak in tongues to do what he did.
This does not mean necessarily that the use of the Gift of Tongues for other purposes is inappropriate. Some of the “ecstasy” experienced by the prophets may be due to a “Tongues” like experience. I’ve have written an article about this and I could e-mail you a copy if you’re interested.

Second, to understand Apollos’ baptism, it helps to know who the Seventy were and what they did. Using the word-search method in the AN&PNF, I’ve tried to track that down and I could send you a list of the Seventy if you’re interested. Some highlights: (a) 25 of the people that Paul mentioned in Romans 16 were members of the Seventy. (b) 4 of the original 70 left the Faith to follow the teachings of the heretic Simon Magus, who began gaining notoriety in Acts 8. These are Nicholas of Antioch (Acts 6:5, Revelation 2:6, 15); Demas (Colossians 4:14, 2 Timothy 4:10); Phygellas and Hermogenes (2 Timothy 1:15). (c) In his various missionary journeys, Paul worked with 60 of the Seventy at some time. (d) When Christ spoke of eating His flesh and drinking His blood (referring to the Lord’s Table), “many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more” (John 6:66). Included in those who left were Apollos and the Evangelists Mark and Luke. Obviously they returned later, but Apollos was in Alexandria at Pentecost and missed the Coming of the Holy Spirit. As you said, his preaching was correct; he had heard it from the Master Himself. But he had missed something and needed to be updated.

Third, there were major upheavals among the Seventy and major heretical movements in the 1st Century Church. When some of the Seventy left, they were replaced, similar to Matthias’ replacement of Judas (Acts 1:15-26), with Timothy and others. In doing my word searches in the AN&PNF on the word “Simon”, looking for Simon Peter, I found, to my surprise, as many references to Simon Magus as to Simon Peter. So I collected them together into a paper on heresy in the Early Church. Some highlights: (a) Justin Martyr referred to the erection or a statue in Rome of Simon Magus by Emperor Claudius, with the title, “To Simon, the Holy God”. (b) A number of Church Fathers referred to Simon as the source of all the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Century heresies. (c) In most of the books of the New Testament, there are references to Simon’s heresies; if one knows what they were, they are easily recognized. (d) Each of Simon’s followers added some “new twist” to create his own teachings, thus creating an explosive growth of heresies in the 1st Century just as the Church was experiencing tremendous growth. Your references to the pseudo-apostles, hyper-apostles and gnostics fall right in behind Simon and his followers. If you’re interested, I can send you a copy of this also.

All this made the Apostles’ Creed very necessary in the 1st Century. However, the heretics were able to find loopholes due to the lack of details. But that was corrected in the Nicene Creed.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Mark,

No, I don't have what you speak of, I only have the 10 volume Ante-Nicene Fathers, Eerdman's

I don't believe the gift was necessary for evangelization. Paul says that speaking in tongues in the sense of "gift" is to pray with the spirit but now the mind (i.e., understanding), that God knows what is said but neither the speaker nor the hearer do (in ordinary circumstances, as in Corinth.) Of course, Pentacost was the extraordinary circumstance, but notice that those who heard those gathered in the upper room speaking in their languages were bi-lingual at least, speaking Greek and or Aramaic. City dwellers at the time tended to know Greek as well as their native tongue, so it was the lingua franka of the Hellenistic culture, and prior to that, in the middle east, Aramaic had been, and perhaps to some extent still was, the lingua franka there as well, it was certainly rife in the rural parts of Palestine.


Some of the “ecstasy” experienced by the prophets may be due to a “Tongues” likeexperience. I’ve have written an article about this and I could e-mail you a copy if you’reinterested.

Yes, I am interested, please do.

Regarding the 70, I have them listed in my copy of The Orthodox Study Bible. I have a hard time believing it. I would be very interested to know how someone claims to know who these really were.

I know that there is evidence of a following of St. John the Baptizer in Northern Egypt, and I am aware of a connection between Alexandria, Ephesus and the "Logos" thology of St. John the Theologian, and I have no idea of how well the followers of the martyed St. John the Baptizer had developed their Christology, but it would seem that it was developed enough to have understood Who Jesus was up to his crucifixion but apparently not beyond to His resurrection and promise of the Spirit. This of course maintains in the scenario you presented, and yours may even be true, I just don't think it needs to be, I'd need more historic evidence befor I accepted it (no, sorry, "tradition of the elders" as powerful as it may be, is not quite enough).

I am also aware of the connection between Simon Magus and the subsequent heresies. He is the prime example of the "hyper-apostle" preaching only himself.


Each of Simon’s followers added some “new twist” tocreate his own teachings, thus creating an explosive growth of heresies in the 1st Century just asthe Church was experiencing tremendous growth. Your references to the pseudo-apostles, hyper-apostles and gnostics fall right in behind Simon and his followers. If you’re interested, Ican send you a copy of this also.

Yes, I'm interested in this as well. I don't yet believe the story Rufinus (?) recounts as to the origin of the creed, as much need for it as there may well have been. I do belive that that need was strong enough to centralize and perhaps strengthen the episcopacy. I also believe, as I stated before, that the drive for the formulation of the various baptizmal creeds was the command recorded in Matt. 28 19-20.

Ultimately though, I don't think anything stands or falls on which of us is right, the only thing important about it is believing what the creed teaches.

Yours,

Richard