It occurs to me that, although it has been a while since I went through the various Protestant catechisms and creedal formulations, I don’t clearly recall any that teach that the material doctrine of the wrapping statements of the AthCreed are themselves proper doctrines of the “catholic faith”, or even specifically affirm that doctrine (which is that above all things a person must profess x-doctrinal set in order to be saved).
I just paged through the Westminster Catechism (Long Form), since that’s a hugely influential Calvinistic set (thus seeming pertinent to discussing the propriety of the wrapping statements with a Calvinist–though admittedly it’s a Puritan text and not Anglican per se), and much to my not-surprise, the wrapping statement was neither mentioned as being a creedal doctrine in itself, nor that above all things a person must profess x-doctrinal set in order to be saved.
On the contrary, as expected it taught that Christ alone saves us and brings us to faith, including sooner or later to the knowledge of true doctrine. The closest it comes (so far as I could find) to talking about what we have to do to be saved, wouldn’t be out of place in a typical Armianian doctrinal set:
i.e., insofar as God requires anything of us to be saved from His wrath, it’s repentance from sin and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. NOT HOLDING TO A COUPLE DOZEN DOCTRINAL POINTS!
But I’m curious about whether I missed anything there, and about which (if any) other Protestant catechism/creedal sets include the wrapping doctrine of the AthCreed (and if so to what extent).
You haven’t mounted a convincing case for why the Athanasian Creed shouldn’t be accepted as a rebuttal of universalism.
The Roman Catholic church evolved, check your history and it’s only convenient for your argument to pick a late date for the creed. Besides has the Anglican church got it wrong when it uses the Athanasian Creed, does someone need to point it out to them that it actually a “Roman Catholic” creed, come on!
Again a final judgment of works issue isn’t controversial, it’s just a smokescreen.
Your “wrapper” is still pure conjunction, it’s not as though we have conflicting revisions, you’ve only introduced this difference inside the creed to support your final argument.
The accusation parts of the creed are gnostic is quite strange given the way the church fought long and hard against that particular group of heresies, besides without some sort of evidence your only asserting that it’s gnostic.
All,
The creeds are a starting point for defining orthodoxy, a common definition (deja vu, where have I had this type of debate before?) of faith, otherwise we’re all just lone voices adding to the further fragmentation of the church.
Luke: You [Alex] haven’t mounted a convincing case for why the Athanasian Creed shouldn’t be accepted as a rebuttal of universalism.
Tom: A rebuttal is (I thought) an ‘argument’, and in that sense the Ath. Creed offers no argument against UR. It just condemns to ECT all those who disagree with that creed. That’s not a rebuttal, that’s a proclamation. At best it shows that those who wrote the creed believed in ECT. But so what? All one has to do is refuse to embrace the Ath. Creed as definitive of Orthodoxy as MANY orthodox Christians do. But even among Catholics, no Roman Catholic I know of thinks Gregory of Nyssa will roast in hell forever because of his universalism.
I agree the creeds are a starting point for defining orthodoxy.
I have!–which is why I am aware of things like how the Roman Catholic Church didn’t evolve creedal statements like the wrapping material of the AthCreed until the 8th century. Also why I am aware of things like how a late Dark Age composition for this Creed is a majority opinion among scholars for good reasons. (Including the most recent version of The Sources of Catholic Dogma, for example.)
So my actual reasons (including those mentioned by Alex, which I agree with but didn’t mention because Alex already had) are to be ignored and replaced with ad hoc convenience charges, then? (That seems… convenient. )
You are certainly welcome to present arguments for a pre-Schism composition of the Creed including the wrapping statements.
Seeing as how my actual usage, summarized by my quote, was far more nuanced and limited than you’re presenting it, I’ll just quote it again above and move on.
I’m pretty sure you meant that the question of what a final judgment of works means is “just a smokescreen” (not that it isn’t controversial and is just a smokescreen.)
I’m also pretty sure that somewhere up there I mentioned (more than once if I recall correctly) that we can be quite sure (including in regard to the historical contexts surrounding its use, and probably its development), what the author of the Creed and the people who used it meant by ‘eonian judgment’–namely something hopeless (if not exactly a ‘judgment of works’ per se, but that too most likely.)
I don’t consider the topic of what God through the scriptures means by ‘eonian judgment’ to be a smokescreen, which I recall also saying. But, since you mention smokescreens: I do think that what the very late author of the AthCreed, and its supporters, meant by ‘eonian judgment’ is kind of a smokescreen. But maybe that’s me being a Baptist and considering Church tradition (and especially late post-Council tradition) not to be infallibly inspired as to the automatic correctness of doctrine. (A disagreement I would have thought Anglicans shared!–otherwise, once again I have to ironically ask, why aren’t you Roman Catholic instead of in protest against them?)
I suspect you meant “conjecture”; though I would prefer if you meant “conjunction”, since I conjoined a bunch of observations and inferences together rather than merely conjecturing about them!
In the textual transmission of the AthCreed, that’s true (so far as I know.) In the traceable source transmission preceding the AthCreed, this is demonstrably false (as I have made a point of mentioning in some detail.)
Strangely, that wasn’t what I wrote at all. I wrote something exactly the opposite. Is it really necessary to ignore what I wrote in order to charge me with something the opposite of what I believe?
I would call it ironic, though quite understandable as competing gnosticisms would also be expected to treat one another that way.
(Also, I find there’s a habit among orthodox opponents of Gnosticisms, big G, to focus more on their non-trinitarian notions of God and Christ, their incipient or explicit or quasi pantheism, on the way they consider the act of creation, their rejection of the goodness of the material world, and/or on their extreme asceticism or licentiousness, and less on their notion that before all things in order to be saved someone must hold various doctrines!–which is the only portion of their belief set that actually applies to the term ‘gnosticism’.)
So what I wrote in detailed analysis about it, in previous posts, now counts as mere assertion? Well, maybe other people will count it as detailed analysis (right or wrong) instead.
Meanwhile, I’ll point out (in hindsight I see Tom/TGB did, too) that the AthCreed doesn’t argue or present evidence, its form is completely assertive, and (as Tom well put it) couldn’t therefore be a rebuttal (per se) to universalism anyway.
So I am supposed to accept its assertions as though they are arguments and rebuttals, against my own arguments which I am supposed to treat as assertions and not arguments?! Or you think this is proper for other people to do in regard to what I wrote perhaps?
Things like this are why other Protestants (including my home Southern Baptists–despite the fact that, as I noted previously, they tend to accept the doctrine of the wrapping statements of the AthCreed!–and despite the fact that they can’t, and shouldn’t, try to get away from creeds) distrust the whole concept of creeds. They (and I) don’t think the creeds are a starting point for defining orthodoxy. We think the scriptures (and I would add reason, though they wouldn’t necessarily) are the starting point for defining orthodoxy. The creeds, especially the Big Three, are end results of centuries of attempts at trying to figure out what the scriptures are testifying to, so that we can rightly represent (‘ortho-doxa’) God to the world (and so we can rightly praise God, too, in worship.)
I agree with Robin: “I don’t [believe] that that creed lays any foundations for understanding the Trinity. All those foundations were already laid long before it was penned. What it does (wonderfully) is to set out the grammar of talk about the Trinity.”
But since you asserted that it “helps lay the foundation” for the doctrine of the Trinity, I will observe once again, as I have already done in detail, that the wrapping statements HAVE NOTHING IN THE LEAST TO DO WITH DEFINING OR EXPLAINING OR REPORTING THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY!! They talk about the doctrine of the Trinity in one and only one regard, a regard that is not in itself even remotely the doctrine of the Trinity (which is probably why it wasn’t included in prior versions of the Apostle’s Creed, even though many people including authoritative ones no doubt believed the content of the wrapping statements, too.)
I spend thousands of pages of effort defending the content of the doctrine of the Trinity as wonderfully set out in the AthCreed. The wrapping statements are not content of the doctrine of the Trinity–this is very obviously and evidently true, even by terms of how the statements present themselves, regardless of whether the one doctrine of those wrapping statements should also be defended or not.
But that striking difference is one (of several) reasons why I don’t consider the wrapping statements to be authoritative dogma. Nor several other large and ancient branches of trinitarian Christendom (more ancient than the Anglicans, certainly moreso than us Baptists. ), even though those branches would almost entirely agree with the precepts of the catholic faith statement in the AthCreed (aside from the filioque reference–which I also accept and defend. But because I believe the creed is right, not because it’s in the creed.)
Nor would I ever say that any creed has supreme authority (and I doubt Robin really meant that either, though if he did that’s his business.) God has supreme authority. Not me, not the creeds (whether Ath or Nicean), not the bishops and theologians of tradition, not the apostles, not the prophets, not kings, not judges, not the inspired authors of scripture, not angels, not scripture itself.
Parry’s argument seems be a version of “my prior beliefs (universalism) make me disagree with some of the content”, for example he doesn’t describe why some of the content should be correct and some should be incorrect. What do you think?
TGB,
“Rebuttal” shorthand for part of the wider evidence against universalism.
Jason,
I’m not sure where we are with the Roman Catholic thing. The creed wasn’t created as a Roman Catholic document, partly because the Roman Catholic church is an entity which has evolved over time and partly because the creed was composed to early for it to be Roman Catholic. But even if it was, that doesn’t change it’s content or authority over the Western Churches.
I think we’re going to be stuck again, because this phrase makes no sense at all to me, are you referring to an earlier version of the creed, do multiple versions of this creed exist? I’m not being pedantic because much of your post depends on this distinction you make between “the wrapper” the rest of the content.
It’s interesting you mention the East not accepting the AthC. They’d do so based on the complexities of the divisions between the West and the East regarding unity and diversity in the Trinity, which is quite different to a modern universalist rejecting it because they are uncomfortable with it’s anti-universalist stance.
Luke, I’ve tried to explain here What is the definition of Orthodoxy? why I don’t think this creed is a good definition of Orthodoxy. Therefore, I’d be measuring the Athanasian creed against the Nicene Creed.
I’m pretty sure the 8th century post-dates the schism. The Roman Catholics agree. Among other reasons for considering its composition to be roughly 8th century, the current Dogmatic Sources summarizes scholarship universally in favor of a post-schism composition, though with variance as to the author. As I previously mentioned.
And yet you aren’t RC. Me neither.
You may agree with the content of the Creed (including the wrapping statements), but you certainly don’t agree with the authoritative issues involved in the composition and promotion of this Creed in the West.
I really don’t see why this is controversial. It’s only an observation about the structure of the AthCreed. There’s an introduction; then a Part 1 which begins with “And the catholic faith is this” and which focuses on the characteristics of the Trinity at the fundamental level of God’s reality; then a two-part bridging statement comprised of a concluding comment about Part 1 and an introduction to Part 2 (which unlike the introduction to Part 1 is not a separate sentence from the content of the faith, although it’s still commenting on the faith); then a Part 2 which focuses on the Incarnation; then a concluding statement.
The underlined portions in the paragraph above are the wrapping and bridging statements. Regardless of whether one agrees with their content or not, that’s the form of the AthCreed per se. Wrapper 1, Part 1, Bridge, Part 2, Wrapper 2.
No, no one knows of any earlier version of the AthCreed per se than what started showing up in the extreme West in the 8th century. (Although portions of the Creed quote from Augustine’s work as published throughout the West.) The positions of the Catholic Faith statement in the middle are consonant with the Chalcedonian Ecumenical version of the Nicean Creed, and are clearly an exposition of the material going back to the Apostle’s Creed. But (and I will write this yet again) no version of the Apostle’s and/or Nicean Creed prior to the AthCreed contained the one doctrinal statement insisted upon by the wrapping/bridging material of the AthCreed. As far as included creedal material goes, the wrapping/bridging statements are entirely new (and post-schism) additions.
As I argued in some detail previously, those additions make sense in the context of the struggles of the RCC at that time in trying to browbeat other large trinitarian communions into accepting the primal authority (including inspired doctrinal authority) of the Roman bishop and Magesterium. These issues are paralleled by the RCC’s notion of “ecumenical” attempts in dogmatic sources dating from roughly the same period–issues which include accepting the filioque (prominently present in the AthCreed) and rejecting universal salvation (which the wrapping statements definitely deny.)
No, the textual situation starts (in the 8th c!) with the form you’re familiar with, as far as I know, and proceeds without significant variation from there.
Yes, I know; I am certainly the one being pedantically detailed about details here. I actually wish you’d address the details I have already pedantically discussed. (Multiple times.)
As I previously noted (in detail) the Eastern Orthodox reject it for basically four reasons:
1.) It wasn’t a Creed agreed to in shared ecumenical council;
2.) It includes the filioque (which is the only “complexity” “regarding unity and diversity in the Trinity” that they have a problem with so far as this AthCreed is concerned–other Eastern trinitarian churches might have other problems regarding how the Two Natures of Christ are described in Part 2–which wouldn’t be surprising since the language is formulated to speak against how those congregations regard the Two Natures–but the EOx don’t have a problem with that);
3.) It has that set of wrapping/bridging statements which deny any hope of universal salvation (whereas the Eastern Orthodox, as well as other trinitarian Churches of the East respect universal salvation as a theological opinion and refuse to pronounce dogmatically for or against it);
3.1.) Plus the wrapping/bridging statements teach salvation by doctrinal assent, which is of some concern to various EOx theologians (and ought to be of great concern to any Protestant theologian, especially a Calvinist!);
4.) They are as aware as the (modern) RCCs about the historical contexts of the formulation of the AthCreed as a rhetorical tactic for ecumenical browbeating by the RCCs post-schism.
Modern EOx universalists, as well as EOx universalists at the time (as well as trinitarian universalists in other Eastern communions then and now), reject the dogmatic anti-universalist stance of the AthCreed, quite similarly to modern Protestant universalists.
Modern EOx non-universalists, a well as EOx non-universalists at the time (as well as trinitarian non-universalists in other Eastern communions then and now), do not reject the dogmatic anti-universalist stance of the AthCreed, but do reject its application to themselves, especially in the context of special papal authority, in regard to various Christological statements in the “catholic faith” portions of the Creed. (Though this rejection is limited to the filioque inclusion for the EOx, who unlike the other Eastern communions consider themselves to be “catholic” trinitarians per se, just like conservative Protestants do–universalistic or otherwise.)
I will also repeat again something I have already repeated before; this time with added emphases:
While I am at it, I will repeat (a new repeat not a repeated repeat this time ) a request out of curiosity to see how many Protestant Creedal statements (whether they’re called “creeds” per se or not) include the explicit content of the wrapping/bridging material.
I have observed (in some detail) that the Westminster Confession does not (or not in its Long Form anyway; maybe it does in the Short Form??) Are there any which do?
Edited to add: the final version of the Anglican Covenant does not insist that in order to be saved the first and foremost importance is to hold to a particular doctrinal set, nor that those who do not hold to this set will be perma-damned. Much less does it include the doctrine of permanent damnation (ECT and/or Anni) as being one of the doctrines which people must first and foremost hold in order to avoid being perma-damned. (Which even the AthCreed itself doesn’t do, strictly speaking!) Nor does it mention the AthCreed at all, even at 1.1.4 where one might have most expected it. (“Each [Anglican Communion] Church affirms” as part of “our inheritance of faith” “the Apostles’ Creed, as the baptismal symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith”).
Perhaps another Anglican creedal statement (there are several) includes the insistence that to be saved, the most important thing (above all other considerations) is to hold to a doctrinal set, apart from the holding of which the person will be perma-damned?
Back when I believed in ECT, I would have had a problem with the Athanasian creed for its unscriptural standard of condemnation. When does Jesus ever have a conversation that goes anything close to this:
“Lord, what must I do to be saved?”
“Well, you have to believe this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence…”
If that understanding was essential to salvation, wouldn’t He have made a point of mentioning it? But no:
To the Rich Man He says, “Sell everything, give to the poor, and come follow Me.”
To the Lawyer He says, “Love God and love your neighbor.”
To the Pharisee He says, “You must be begotten of the Spirit.”
To the Samaritan He says, “The Father desires worshipers who worship in spirit and truth–not in a place.”
Jesus wasn’t considered very “orthodox” in His day, even though He is Himself the embodiment of true orthodoxy. So, I think I’ll not be too worried about who thinks what is properly orthodox.
Why do we humans try so hard to complicate things?
Luke: “Rebuttal” shorthand for part of the wider evidence against universalism.
Tom: I’ll agree, Luke, that the authors of the Athanasian Creed were not unviversalists. My question to this is: So what? What’s that prove that universalists don’t alreayd agree with?
You can produce a statement of faith that emplores ECT (but a statement which is rejected by many as not an authoritative expressive of orthodoxy). I can produce universalist church fathers who have never been condemned and who remain in both the East and West beloved and revered, conclusive evidence that universalists were not (and are not) considered heretics by either East or West. So what’s that prove except universalism is compatible with orthodoxy?
In other words, when you say the Ath. Creed is part of the “wider evidence against universalim” what KIND of evidence do you mean? Historical evidence that the majority of believers have always been believers in ECT? We all grant that already. Biblical evidence that universalism is a false beliefl? But you already know the creeds aren’t arguments for what is exegetically the case with that or that biblical passage. Evidence that universalism was historically considered to be heresy? But you already know that’s not the case.
So I’m still wondering just what proposition you’re arguing for on the basis of the Ath. Creed. Can you state it more plainly?
Update: The Canons of The Synod of Dordrecht, a primitive Calvinistic Reformation document dating to early 1619, also does not state that to be saved what is of first and foremost importance is to hold to a doctrinal set; nor that those who do not keep this doctrinal set wholly will thereby be perma-damned.
On the contrary, the election of God is robustly affirmed as election to faith (including to belief in right doctrine, affirmed to be equivalent to the trinitarian catholic faith statement of the AthCreed).
Has anyone else, meanwhile, found a Protestant creedal statements, especially from Calvinists, insisting that to be saved a person must above all things hold rightly and wholly a certain doctrinal set, without the holding of which the person will surely be perma-damned instead? i.e. affirming what the wrapping and bridging statements of the AthCreed insist upon?
Keep in mind, the wrapping and bridging statements of the AthCreed, whether or not they are themselves considered part of the catholic faith statement, do not simply mention permanent damnation. They do so exclusively in this context of requiring the knowledge and keeping of doctrines for salvation (or not for hopeless damnation). I would be extremely surprised to find that a Protestant Calv creedal statement affirms this, too. (Not quite so much a Protestant Arm statement, although neither can I recall one offhand which does.)
Also why I am aware of things like how a late Dark Age composition for this Creed is a majority opinion among scholars for good reasons. (Including the most recent version of The Sources of Catholic Dogma, for example.)
)