Do evangelicals who deny baptsimal regeneration violate the nicene creed?


part of the nicene creed reads “we believe in one baptism for the remission of sins”

but evangelicals do not believe that baptism can convey a remission of sins, therefore can’t one say that evangelicals deny part of the creed


Evangelicals don’t normally acknowledge the Nicene Creed as valid or authoritative.


Yes they do. Which makes it pretty hard for them to say that Early Christianity taught what they teach.


It is a tradition of man. So yes you are right.

Really Mike, In my sacremental reformed days we recited it but now with my spiritual growth I find it at odds with scripture, as do most evangelicals as it is as I mentioned a man made tradition.


Many do not hold to the Nicene Creed and some have never heard of it. Some who aware of it, say it “proves” the Church went off the rails very early on, having been tainted by “pagan” beliefs. Those who hold to the Creed gloss over the parts that don’t support their beliefs, just as they do with the Bible.


I think they believe it without calling it the same thing. They think that a non-Christian is not “saved” and is living a sinful life of sex and drugs and rock and roll. Baptism is a sign that the former non-member has renounced that lifestyle and is “saved”. It’s a close enough approximation to the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin.


Which means you have rejected the essential Christian doctrines formulated as early as 325 AD. Which means, BTW, that you must believe that the Church which formed the canon of scripture some 50-100 years later was already in grave error. So when you reject the Nicene Creed you also reject the bible. :eek:


Really Mike, In my sacremental reformed days we recited it but now with my spiritual growth I find it at odds with scripture, as do most evangelicals as it is as I mentioned a man made tradition.

wow, this is really sad. And to think that you constantly cut and paste from the early church fathers to show how they were “protestant” or “practiced sola scriptura.” But the fact that you deny what is written in the Nicene Creed, the same creed which declared christ to be devine, God and Man, and the trinity, shows that you really don’t care what the early church has taught! O and by the way, if you reject the nicene creed as a “tradition of man” then you must also reject the canon of the new testament as a “tradition of man” because the same principles used to canonize the nicine creed were used to canonize the new testament. They were both determined at a council


How can the same principles be used? Your talking Scripture VS. a summary of teaching.

Your not really saying the Nicene creed is scripture, Are you?


So, if Catholics put together a creed or statement of faith, it is called a “tradition of man” and rejected.

When evangelicals put together a list of “essentials” or “fundamentals”, it is called…what? A Statement of Unity? :rotfl:

Really Mike, In my sacremental reformed days we recited it but now with my spiritual growth I find it at odds with scripture, as do most evangelicals as it is as I mentioned a man made tradition.

That’s very interesting, Simon.

What portions of the Nicene Creed to do you find at odds with Scripture (and which verses in particular)?


Well, not exactly.

They reject the infallibilty of the Church but they accept the canon that a fallible Church produced.

The question to be asked is: how do you know that a fallible Church defined the Canon without error?


Right. In tossing out the Nicean Creed one ends up also tossing out the sure knowledge that the bible is what we all think it is.

Isn’t that what I said? :slight_smile:


My church accepts the Nicene Creed. While you won’t agree, we regard baptism for the remission of sins as baptism of the Holy Spirit. After all John the Baptist said he baptized with water but the One who came after would baptize with the Holy Spirit. And catholic church means the invisible universal church. I am not looking for an argument just stating the position of my denomination.


Jesus established a very visible Church. : )


And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him.

Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Being baptised with water and the Spirit of God is here the same as being born again of water and the Holy Spirit - without which He says you cannot enter…


I would say that while the Nicene creed is not scripture, it is the infallible interpretation of scripture.

Keep in mind why the creed was written in the first place.

The great theological debates of the 2nd century centered on exactly who Christ was, and what manner of being he was. In the early 4th century, the debate switched to what the relationship was between Christ and God the Father. Some church officials, such as a presbyter in Alexandria named Arius (c. 250 - 336 A.D.) argued that Jesus was divine, but on a lower level then the Father. Arius started with this premise:

“One God, alone unbegotten, alone everlasting, alone unbegun, alone true, alone having immortality, alone wise, alone good, alone sovereign.”

From this starting point, Arius ended up with the view that Christ was an intermediary distinct from the Father (or that there was a difference of substance (homoiousia), or essential being between the Father and the Son.)

On the other side of the issue was Athanasius, (c. 296-373 A.D.), later Bishop of Alexandria, who argued that the Word (John 1:1-18) became man - the Word did not come into a man. Thus, Christ is fully God and fully man.

High Noon occurred in 325 A.D. when Constantine, emperor of the Roman Empire ordered that the debate be settled once and for all. A great church council was ordered, and it took place at Nicea (in Bithynia). Arius lost the debate, and the view of Athanasius became the view of the church. The doctrine of homoousios was affirmed – that Christ was of one (or the same) substance with the Father. Out of the Council came the Nicene Creed – one of the two Creeds recognized by almost all of Christianity today. The original version (it was expanded in 381 A.D.) stated:

“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things

both visible and invisible; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son

of God, Only begotten of the Father, that is to say, of the

substance of the Father, God of God and Light of Light, very

God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance

with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in

heaven and things on earth; who, for us men and for our

salvation, came down and was made flesh, was made man,

suffered, and rose again on the third day, went up into the

heavens, and is to come again to judge both the quick and the

dead; and in the Holy Ghost.” (emphasis added)

Arianism was perhaps the greatest threat to the Early Church out of all the schisms and heresies. By some estimates, almost half of all Christians were Arians at its peak in the 4th century. Although condemned by the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., it didn’t die out completely until the 8th century. However, there are still groups today (such as the Unitarians) who, like Arius, reject Trinitarianism.

So far in this thread people down played the creed by saying that it is not scripture (which is correct), or that it is “man made tradition”, but the creed was written to clarify what the church believed. Parts of it might go against your own personal interpretation of scripture, but I guess the followers of Arius said the same things about the church at the time.
Why do Protestant pick and choose what they believe?
Most protestant’s will select only part of what is written in the creed.
Some reject the part about baptism, some like the Unitarians and the JW’s reject the divinity of Christ.

Was the council only led by the Holy Spirit on the parts of the creed that you believe in, and the parts that you don’t believe in are just man made traditions?

Do Protestants say that it is a man made tradition, because it goes against their own personal interpretation of scripture?
Is it possible that their personal interpetation just might be wrong?


Have you ever thought that your ‘spiritual growth’ has led you further away from the truth. Maybe your interpretation of scripture is actually at odds with what scripture is teaching.

I do think that you totally believe what you preach, but to say that one of the most important creeds of Christianity is just a ‘man made tradition’ just blows me away.
If the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 weren’t in the bible, would you say that it also was just a ‘man made tradition’, or would you say that it was led by the Holy Spirit, to say that the gentiles didn’t have to be circumcised?

Why don’t you think that the Church couldn’t be led by the Holy Spirit in addressing heresy?
Is it because it came up with teachings that contridict your own personal understanding of Scripture?

How are we to determine what Scripture is teaching us?
Is it up for grabs?
Or did Jesus leave us a Chruch to teach us and lead us in truth?



The reason I’m picking at nits here is because I can see how easily the evangelical might say, “I don’t agree with the creed, but I don’t reject the Bible.”

I’m trying to get at the heart of the matter which is that the Church has developed a statement of orthodoxy which they reject - and in doing so open themselves up to all kinds of personal interpretation of the Bible…which is not quite the same as rejection of the Bible.



There are numerous verses which specifically declare that water baptism washes away sin.

How does your understanding of the infilling of the Holy Spirit coincide with the plain text of these verses?


Is the doctrine of the Trinity a tradition of man? It’s found in the creed, not in the Bible, right?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit