Should We Change The Nicene Creed In the LCMS ?

Part 4

By: Rev. Jack Cascione
(More Questions From John Dorsch)

The LCMS Commission on worship is proposing that the Nicene Creed be changed to read, "who for us human beings and our salvation" to replace the current "who for us men and our salvation."

The following is a reply to additional written questions from John Dorsch's. (The first question and second answer were published on Reclaim News on January 22, and 26, Feb. 3, 2003.)

Dorsch disagrees with me and is in favor of changing the Nicene Creed to read, "who for us human beings and our salvation," instead of what we currently confess, "who for us men and our salvation."


Pastor Cascione,

Thanks for your brief response and I look forward to your next response.

Question 1. The fundamental methodological question behind my second question is something you are not acknowledging. What warrant do we have for appealing to the New Testament Koine Greek to render the meaning and theological content of a patristic creedal phrase or word. Although the creed is entirely based on Scripture, you cannot simply assume the NT words inform the meaning of fourth century Greek. If you are to make this argument, which has yet to be demonstrated by you, then you need to address the LXX as much, if not more, than the NT.

Reply From Cascione;

I'm simply following the axiom that Scripture interprets Scripture.  The Creed is about the faith taught in the Bible and not the innovations of the Fourth Century as you intimate.  The key to understanding what is meant in the Creeds is to understand what the Bible says.  Otherwise, the Creeds are confessing what the theologians of the 4th Century believed instead of what the Bible says.


Question 2. Second, I do not fully understand your insistence that 'concrete' man and 'abstract' humanity are necessarily mutually exclusive and cannot co-exist in the same creed. Would you explain that further for me?  Also, when Scripture tells us that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (e.g., I Jn 2:2) is this, in your estimation, a concrete or abstract assertion?

Reply From Cascione:

Luther used the terms "concrete" and "abstract."  He writes: "Therefore I believe that the grammars are correct and divinely guided when they call some words concrete and the other abstract, even though there are endless arguments about the concrete and abstract, and I believe it can never be decided, even in philosophy and created things, whether there is such a thing as an abstract.  For instance, when I speak of whiteness, I am not speaking of anything white nor mentioning anything at all.  The mention of whiteness excludes any subject, which must afterward be conjoined and connected by the mention of the white thing from which it was separated and abstracted." ("Martin Luther's Fuller Exposition of Isaiah 53", Compiled by George Roerer, 1544, Trans. Ken Miller, 1988 page 132, available through CN)

The world, as stated in John 2:2 is to be understood as a concrete term as Christ's propitiation for our sins is a concrete event, not a philosophical concept.


Question 3. According to Liddell and Scott, "anthropos" is used in I Esdras 9 to refer to a woman specifically. I don't have the exact reference in front of me, sorry.

Reply from Cascione:

I checked Liddell Scott and the term "anthropos" is used at least twice in antiquity in reference to women in non-Biblical literature.  This doesn't change the fact that the New Testament never used the term "anthropos" in 508 occurrences in reference to a woman.  There are also usages of other Greek terms like  "baptism," "justification" and "church" that are unique to the New Testament.


Question 4. I Esdras may not be in your bible but it was for many of the church fathers.

Reply from Cascione:

You know as well as I that the same group of people who wrote the Nicene Creed discarded I Esdras as non-Biblical literature.


Question 5. "Humanity" is an abstraction of the concrete human being. You cannot make "human being" abstract and argue that "man" is "concrete". The words mean the same thing. With respect to Christ, I have never suggested that we look at his abstract natures. With that said, being fully "human" and fully "divine" means that Christ was fully "man" and fully "God". This is the language of the fathers--the very fathers who struggled mightily to defend the orthodoxy of the Creed we are so casually discussing.

Reply from Cascione:

I disagree.  Humanity is an "abstraction" as is "human being."  Adam and Eve are not two different forms of humanity.  Adam and Eve are human beings but only Adam is a man and only Eve is a woman.  Christ is not fully "woman" and fully "God."  He is "fully man" and fully "God." Being fully human also means either a man or a woman; there isn't any third choice.


Question 6. I did not say you couldn't use the NT. I suggested that you had to use the LXX and non-Christian sources as well. Your use of Kelly is somewhat skewed. The creed belongs to the fourth century Greek world. Justin Martyr had nothing to do with the creed or its language.

Reply From Cascione:

Again I disagree. Justin Martyr is recorded as writing the first Creed.  The Nicene Creed is not an invention of the 4th Century.  Actually, the Bible has everything to do with the Creed or the Creed is not Biblical and not Christian.


Question 7. I understand your dislike of philosophy but if we are seeking to understand the meaning of the Creed for the drafters of the Creed, then you must take into consideration the neo-Platonism of the time and the consequent theological anthropology. My reference to Genesis 1:26-27 is crucial in this respect, especially for the Cappodocians, who arguably are the most influential of the fathers when it comes to the Nicene Creed.

Reply From Cascione:

The Nicene fathers rejected neo-Platonism, which was rampant in their day. The New Testament is not a series of philosophical constructs.  It is the Word of God.  It is sinful people who want to philosophize and humanize the Word of God.

Gen 1:27 reads: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."  The Septuagint translation into Greek is not the major concern here, but the original Hebrew should be followed.  The Hebrew actually reads, "So God created THE man in his own image. . ."  The Septuagint is correct here but the King James and nearly every English translation are not correct when they translate, "So God created man in his own image. . . ."

There is hardly anything philosophical about "So God created THE man in his own image. . ." nor did the Cappodocian fathers have anything to do with it. Adam was a male human being, namely a man as was Jesus Christ.  The Nicene Creed should read, "Who for us men and our salvation" because that is exactly what it means.


Question 8. "who for us men" means "who for us human beings" especially if the case is going to be made by people, such as yourself, that it literally means men and not women or children. The soteriology you are advocating is not orthodox. If you think it is, please offer citations from the Lutheran fathers that say that men are saved by Christ and women and children are saved through men.


Reply from Cascione

Did you ever notice that God doesn't speak to Mary but only Joseph after they are married?  You are teaching that soteriology (the work of salvation) changes the natural order and the order of creation.  The Bible says, "by one man sin entered the world" not by "one woman" or by "one human being." Also by "one man" salvation came to all people.  Eve sinned but it was Adam that damned her and the whole world to hell.

Incidentally, when a man sinned, Moses had the entire family killed by God's order.

Here is a citation from Luther who teaches that Adam was superior to Eve. He writes: "In the remaining creatures God is recognized as by His footprints; but in the human being, especially in Adam, He is truly recognized, because in him there is such wisdom, justice, and knowledge of all things that he may rightly be called a world in miniature." LWI:68.

Luther has much more to say about the superiority of Adam in comparison to Eve in the following two pages.  Just as Adam is the cause of sin, Christ is the cause of salvation.

The point being, when God's speaks about men, he is also speaking about women and children.  In no way does this imply that women are justified through men, anymore than God is less concerned about Mary because He only speaks to Joseph after they are married.  You are mixing two issues, the order of creation and the order of salvation.

Again and again the Bible speaks about men but also includes women and children such as Luke 2:14, John 6:10, Acts 4:12, Acts 4:17, Acts 5:29, 1 Corinthians 11:28, 1 Timothy 4:10, and Titus 2:11.  All of these verses are typed out in my response to number three of your original three questions.

You keep bringing up philosophy and 4th century fathers as the reason we can't consider these passages in relationship to the Nicene Creed.  The Bible passages should be enough to prove that the correct interpretation of the Nicene Creed is, "who for us men and our salvation."

February 17, 2003