The Constantinopolitan Creed [Creed of 150 Fathers]
You thought I'd forgotten, didn't you? No such luck! ...it's just hard to maintain a routine and schedule when you're on vacation...
We believe in one God, the Father All Governing [pantokratora], creator [poieten] 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 time [pro panton ton aionon] Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not created [poiethenta], of the same essence [reality] as the Father [homoousion to patri], through Whom all things came into being, Who for us men and because of our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became human [enanthropesanta]. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and rose 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 the living and the dead. His kingdom shall have no end [telos].
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giver, who proceeds from the Father, who is worshipped and glorified together with the Father and Son, Who spoke through the prophets; and in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins. We look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
No LJ-cut! I decided if you weren't going to read my exposition on the creed, then you wouldn't mind scrolling past it (or the whole entry in general), whereas if you wanted to, why should I make you jump through extra hoops?
If you've been keeping up with the creeds, you'll immediately notice the overwhelming similarities between this creed and the Nicaean Creed. That's because this creed is basically just a brush up on Nicaea, and it is in fact easier to highlight the additions made to Nicaea than to just rehash the main points common to both. An interesting side note: if you've been to a liturgical church that actually taught creeds (besides the Apostles' Creed) then you may have learned the Nicaean Creed. If this is the case, what you most likely actually learned was the Constantinopolitan Creed, because it is the same as Nicaea, with some additional jewels set in as well.
The first major thing is that this creed, unlike Nicaea, deals more intimately with the incarnation of Christ. At the time of the Council of Constantinople, in AD 381, the heresies abounding in the early church centered not around trinitarian doctrine (as before) but around the nature of the incarnation, and what it meant that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." The Council of Chalcedon will deal in depth with these heresies in AD 451, but until then, the fathers at Constantinople added language to the creed to defend correct doctrine. Constantinople also includes a specific reference to Pilate (and to Mary) to lend details to the story of Christ, important details regarding his origins on earth and his end at the hands of men.
This creed also tosses in there a two-bit line at the end of the second paragraph: "His kingdom shall have no end." Now, this will get a little Greek-ified, but hang in there with me. The word used (as noted in the creed) is telos, which we might call 'end.' The word we use for describing the 'end of times,' the last days, the apocalypse/armageddon/return of Christ is taken from the greek word eschatos, meaning 'last.' Still with me? What's the difference between 'end' and 'last'? For us, the difference is in stages. Christ's kingdom has already been established, and will not end. However, the first stage, which we are in now, will end, or will see its last days, because it is the stage where the kingdom is established, but the people don't all know it/realize it/feel its effects yet. (Poor historical analogy: periods of consolidation immediately after revolutions, however short or long, are but the first stages of the new government. Not that there is a consolidation phase to the Kingdom.)
That Christ's kingdom will have no end is an important reminder of the nature of the faith Constantinople (and Nicaea, and Chalcedon, etc.) are defending. I know I've mentioned before that we've lost our forward-looking hope for our salvation (justification, sanctification, and glorification, to use a variety of "-ations" that are always inadequately explained, and which I will for now continue to leave inadequately explained) in the full realization of the Kingdom on earth. It is not for an earthly kingdom which we strive, but for a heavenly one, which will be seen on earth.
Some things get so ingrained in us that we lost focus on important things. take this for example: why are we more inclined to help people who are suffering close to us, rather than people who are suffering far away? Whether that distance is geographical or psychological, the statement is still true. That's why those commercials on TV show starving children in Africa; academic knowledge of their plight doesn't bring those children psychologically (or geographically!) closer to us, but pictures of them do. And when they are psychologically closer, we are more inclined to help them.
So this priniciple of psychological closeness applies to religion/philosophy too. We don't much realize it anymore, but it's still there. Whatever religion, there is always an element of that religion devoted to something psychologically close to us. Even Stoics are psychologically close to the benefits they believe they will reap from their spartan existences.
So the relationship and worldview that the Bible teaches is remarkably close to us psychologically. Modern and Post-modern Christianity isn't always so close, but that's something else. The salvation the Bible talks about isn't a distant dreamy thing. it's a present reality, with a future hope that will be realized in a geographically and psychologically close way.
Josh and I once had a conversation about Star Trek. the first two series, the Original, and the Next Generation, were good because when things came down to the wire, the shows were about preserving Earth. they were connected to our home planet, and although almost nothing ever happened here, the experiences we have in our lives everyday were nonetheless connected to the plots, because the characters were always striving to protect those everyday experiences. However, this was not true for Deep Space Nine (or Voyager?). DS9 was so removed from earth that we (at least, Josh and I) felt much less connected to the events in the show, much less threatened by the dangers...much less related to the concepts.
The Bible is extraordinarily close to us. Events with importance on a cosmic scale happen here. Events with import on a cosmic scale that don't happen here still tie in intimately with things that do happen here. There is no nebulous "other place" that features prominently in our story ("nebulous other places" including, but not limited to, other planets, heaven, hell, different planes of reality, etc.) Though references may (or may not) be made to each of those places, confirming that they are real, the fact is that they are settings for events which futher the plot here, where we live, in the places we inhabit physically and emotionally.
yes, I know that I could be accused of reading much into "His kingdom shall have no end [telos]." Does that make the point any less important?
Finally, to wrap up briefly, this creed elaborates on the full deity of the Holy Spirit. While the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, the Spirit is seen proceeding from the Father. He is not begotten, because he is not the Son. He is not created, because he is not a creature. Instead, while he originates from the Father, he is not the Father, but is equal to the Father (and the Son). the Church, baptism, and again, the future hope of Christianity are emphasized again at the end of the Creed as important features of Christian belief.
We believe in one God, the Father All Governing [pantokratora], creator [poieten] 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 time [pro panton ton aionon] Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not created [poiethenta], of the same essence [reality] as the Father [homoousion to patri], through Whom all things came into being, Who for us men and because of our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became human [enanthropesanta]. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and rose 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 the living and the dead. His kingdom shall have no end [telos].
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giver, who proceeds from the Father, who is worshipped and glorified together with the Father and Son, Who spoke through the prophets; and in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins. We look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
No LJ-cut! I decided if you weren't going to read my exposition on the creed, then you wouldn't mind scrolling past it (or the whole entry in general), whereas if you wanted to, why should I make you jump through extra hoops?
If you've been keeping up with the creeds, you'll immediately notice the overwhelming similarities between this creed and the Nicaean Creed. That's because this creed is basically just a brush up on Nicaea, and it is in fact easier to highlight the additions made to Nicaea than to just rehash the main points common to both. An interesting side note: if you've been to a liturgical church that actually taught creeds (besides the Apostles' Creed) then you may have learned the Nicaean Creed. If this is the case, what you most likely actually learned was the Constantinopolitan Creed, because it is the same as Nicaea, with some additional jewels set in as well.
The first major thing is that this creed, unlike Nicaea, deals more intimately with the incarnation of Christ. At the time of the Council of Constantinople, in AD 381, the heresies abounding in the early church centered not around trinitarian doctrine (as before) but around the nature of the incarnation, and what it meant that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." The Council of Chalcedon will deal in depth with these heresies in AD 451, but until then, the fathers at Constantinople added language to the creed to defend correct doctrine. Constantinople also includes a specific reference to Pilate (and to Mary) to lend details to the story of Christ, important details regarding his origins on earth and his end at the hands of men.
This creed also tosses in there a two-bit line at the end of the second paragraph: "His kingdom shall have no end." Now, this will get a little Greek-ified, but hang in there with me. The word used (as noted in the creed) is telos, which we might call 'end.' The word we use for describing the 'end of times,' the last days, the apocalypse/armageddon/return of Christ is taken from the greek word eschatos, meaning 'last.' Still with me? What's the difference between 'end' and 'last'? For us, the difference is in stages. Christ's kingdom has already been established, and will not end. However, the first stage, which we are in now, will end, or will see its last days, because it is the stage where the kingdom is established, but the people don't all know it/realize it/feel its effects yet. (Poor historical analogy: periods of consolidation immediately after revolutions, however short or long, are but the first stages of the new government. Not that there is a consolidation phase to the Kingdom.)
That Christ's kingdom will have no end is an important reminder of the nature of the faith Constantinople (and Nicaea, and Chalcedon, etc.) are defending. I know I've mentioned before that we've lost our forward-looking hope for our salvation (justification, sanctification, and glorification, to use a variety of "-ations" that are always inadequately explained, and which I will for now continue to leave inadequately explained) in the full realization of the Kingdom on earth. It is not for an earthly kingdom which we strive, but for a heavenly one, which will be seen on earth.
Some things get so ingrained in us that we lost focus on important things. take this for example: why are we more inclined to help people who are suffering close to us, rather than people who are suffering far away? Whether that distance is geographical or psychological, the statement is still true. That's why those commercials on TV show starving children in Africa; academic knowledge of their plight doesn't bring those children psychologically (or geographically!) closer to us, but pictures of them do. And when they are psychologically closer, we are more inclined to help them.
So this priniciple of psychological closeness applies to religion/philosophy too. We don't much realize it anymore, but it's still there. Whatever religion, there is always an element of that religion devoted to something psychologically close to us. Even Stoics are psychologically close to the benefits they believe they will reap from their spartan existences.
So the relationship and worldview that the Bible teaches is remarkably close to us psychologically. Modern and Post-modern Christianity isn't always so close, but that's something else. The salvation the Bible talks about isn't a distant dreamy thing. it's a present reality, with a future hope that will be realized in a geographically and psychologically close way.
Josh and I once had a conversation about Star Trek. the first two series, the Original, and the Next Generation, were good because when things came down to the wire, the shows were about preserving Earth. they were connected to our home planet, and although almost nothing ever happened here, the experiences we have in our lives everyday were nonetheless connected to the plots, because the characters were always striving to protect those everyday experiences. However, this was not true for Deep Space Nine (or Voyager?). DS9 was so removed from earth that we (at least, Josh and I) felt much less connected to the events in the show, much less threatened by the dangers...much less related to the concepts.
The Bible is extraordinarily close to us. Events with importance on a cosmic scale happen here. Events with import on a cosmic scale that don't happen here still tie in intimately with things that do happen here. There is no nebulous "other place" that features prominently in our story ("nebulous other places" including, but not limited to, other planets, heaven, hell, different planes of reality, etc.) Though references may (or may not) be made to each of those places, confirming that they are real, the fact is that they are settings for events which futher the plot here, where we live, in the places we inhabit physically and emotionally.
yes, I know that I could be accused of reading much into "His kingdom shall have no end [telos]." Does that make the point any less important?
Finally, to wrap up briefly, this creed elaborates on the full deity of the Holy Spirit. While the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, the Spirit is seen proceeding from the Father. He is not begotten, because he is not the Son. He is not created, because he is not a creature. Instead, while he originates from the Father, he is not the Father, but is equal to the Father (and the Son). the Church, baptism, and again, the future hope of Christianity are emphasized again at the end of the Creed as important features of Christian belief.