Best books on Three Creeds

Status
Not open for further replies.

thistle93

Puritan Board Freshman
Hi! I am looking for some of the best books on the three creeds of the universal church:

The Nicene Creed
The Apostles Creed
The Athanasian Creed

Any recommendations? I prefer works that deal with and touch on all three but if there is one that stands out that is just on one of the single creeds let me know as well.
Do not mind a little history of the creeds but more interested in the theology behind the creeds, which I am sure intertwines with the history.
Does not matter if ancient or modern.

Thank you!
For His Glory-
Matthew
 
Some guidelines:

For Nicea and its background, Lewis Ayres is the new standard. Christopher Beeley has some good work covering it in a side way. Nicea 325 is no where near as important as Nicea-Constantinople 381 (which is what we think of when we say the Nicene Creed). John McGuckin's bio on Gregory of Nazianzus covers the latter quite well.

Secondly, Athanasius had nothing to do with the so-called creed of his name. The Creed is almost word-for-word Augustine.

Also, Athanasius might have attended Nicea in 325 but only as a secretary for his bishop, Alexander. He wouldn't have really participated. Bruce Ware made that mistake in his book on ESS.
 
Secondly, Athanasius had nothing to do with the so-called creed of his name. The Creed is almost word-for-word Augustine.

Also, Athanasius might have attended Nicea in 325 but only as a secretary for his bishop, Alexander. He wouldn't have really participated. Bruce Ware made that mistake in his book on ESS.
He was asking for good book on the creed which of course would explain its origins and use within Christianity.
 
But Justin Holcomb’s “Know the Creeds and Councils” is a great intro as well
I also would recommend Holcomb's book. It is short and accessible, so you can even work through it with another man from Church or in a group setting (since such pursuits are always better and more enjoyable with other saints). Also, for the theology of the Apostles' Creed, a study through Lord's Days 7-23 of the Heidelberg Catechism may also be helpful.
 
If you are looking for resources on the specific creeds, IVP's Ancient Christian Doctrine is excellent on the Nicene Creed. It arranges excerpts of the Fathers around the Nicene Creed and has excellent introductions to each section. There are many excerpts that have never been translated into English. I highly commend it to you.

Outside of primary texts, it is probably the best way to get started reading the Fathers.
 
Understood. I was under the impression the titles you recommended only dealt with the Nicean creed. My apologies.

That's fair. There is more recent literature on Nicea era than on Chalcedon. I don't consider the "Athanasian" creed to be a real creed, since it has zero conciliar precedent and no authority in the ancient church. ANd it is word-for-word Augustine, not Athanasius.

I mentioned the monographs for a specific reason. The word "ousia" or "homoousios" has a contested history. If someone would have asked a good conservative. Christian prior to 300 AD whether he believed the Son was of the same essence as the Father, he might have recoiled in horror. OUsia could connote a material substance, which means neither the Son nor the Father would have had ousia, since they wouldn't have been made up of stuff.

It was the tough work after Nicea by Athanasius and the Cappadocians that nailed this issue. That's why Ayres' work is so good.

Per Chalcedon, the trick there is whether Pope Leo's Tome should be read in light of Cyril's theology or the other way around (the former is the right answer). Too many people read Chalcedon abstracted from Cyril of Ephesus.

Other books:

Stead, Christopher. Divine Substance (or some such title).
 
I don't consider the "Athanasian" creed to be a real creed, since it has zero conciliar precedent and no authority in the ancient church. ANd it is word-for-word Augustine, not Athanasius.
It is, and has been regarded as one of the ecumenical creeds by virtually all of Western Christianity. Historically, Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, and the Reformed churches have been unanimous in their acceptance of the Athanasian Creed. That it wasn't composed by Athanasius is as relevant as whether the Apostles' Creed was composed by the Apostles themselves. Eastern Orthodox churches reject it. But so also do they reject the Apostles' Creed and they reject the Nicean Creed as it is worded in the West. Regardless of it's origins, it is an accurate and excellent summary of orthodox Christian doctrine. And that is, by definition what a "creed" is.
 
It is, and has been regarded as one of the ecumenical creeds by virtually all of Western Christianity. Historically, Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, and the Reformed churches have been unanimous in their acceptance of the Athanasian Creed. That it wasn't composed by Athanasius is as relevant as whether the Apostles' Creed was composed by the Apostles themselves. Eastern Orthodox churches reject it. But so also do they reject the Apostles' Creed and they reject the Nicean Creed as it is worded in the West. Regardless of it's origins, it is an accurate and excellent summary of orthodox Christian doctrine. And that is, by definition what a "creed" is.

I understand by its long usage it is considered a creed, but it isn't a conciliar one. That was my point. Nicea, Nicea-Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon are all conciliar works. The "Athanasian" isn't.

I didn't know the East rejected the Apostles' Creed. The way a priest explained it to me is that the Nicene Creed is fuller, so more emphasis is given to it. While I believe they are wrong to reject the Filioque, they are correct in that the Filioque was an extra-conciliar addition to the Creed and not original to it.

As to its triadology, the other creeds attempt some sort of "working out" the monarchia of the Trinity. The Athanasian does not, and while its conclusions may be neater, it misses out on the rich reflections by Gregory and Basil (the guys ultimately responsible for 381 in one way or another).
 
I'll try to explain how the triadology of the conciliar fathers is richer than that of the post-Augustinian school that wrote the Athanasian Creed. The Ath. Creed gets the conclusions right, but the Cappadocian fathers worked out a different method.

The procession of the Holy Spirit is an infinite passage beyond the dyad, which consecrates the absolute (as opposed to relative) diversity of the persons. This passage beyond the dyad is not an infinite series of persons but the infinity of the procession of the Third Person: the Triad suffices to denote the Living God of revelation. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 23 (De pace 3), 10; P.G. 35, col. 1161. Or. 45 (In sanctum pascha); P.G. 36, col. 628C.If God is a monad equal to a triad, there is no place in him for a dyad. Thus the seemingly necessary opposition between the Father and the Son, which gives rise to a dyad, is purely artificial, the result of an illicit abstraction. Where the Trinity is concerned, we are in the presence of the One or of the Three, but never of two.

“The monad is set in motion on account of its richness; the dyad is surpassed, because Divinity is beyond matter and form; perfection is reached in the triad, the first to surpass the composite quality of the dyad, so that the Divinity neither remains constrained nor expands to infinity.” St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or.23 (De pace3), 8; P.G. 35, col. 1160C. See also Or. 29 (Theologica3), 2; P.G. 36, col. 76B.

Of course, Gregory also develops a richst pneumatological history in his 5th Oration. Short of it is this: there is a historical movement embedded within the 381 Creed, which makes it superior.
 
I understand by its long usage it is considered a creed, but it isn't a conciliar one. That was my point. Nicea, Nicea-Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon are all conciliar works. The "Athanasian" isn't.
I haven't claimed it was "conciliar." It isn't; but neither is the Apostles' creed. Do you accept the Apostles' Creed as a "creed"? Or do you reject it because it wasn't the product of a church council? Regardless, Matthew (@thistle93) was interested in works that expounded on the theology of the Apostles', Nicean, and Athanasian creeds. He said he was less interested in their history. So, I didn't think getting into all of this was particularly relevant to the OP.
I didn't know the East rejected the Apostles' Creed. The way a priest explained it to me is that the Nicene Creed is fuller, so more emphasis is given to it.
No, it is not recognized as a creed of the Orthodox churches and and generally forbidden to be used in their liturgy.
As to its triadology, the other creeds attempt some sort of "working out" the monarchia of the Trinity. The Athanasian does not, and while its conclusions may be neater, it misses out on the rich reflections by Gregory and Basil (the guys ultimately responsible for 381 in one way or another).
If the Athanasian Creed is essentially taken word-for-word from Augustine, I would be reluctant to criticize it. But that's just me.
 
Do you accept the Apostles' Creed as a "creed"?

I accept it as an early baptismal confession.
He said he was less interested in their history. So, I didn't think getting into all of this was particularly relevant to the OP.

I don't think you can really separate the two. Anyone who has read on the person-nature debate and terminology in the 4th century knows you have to have the history handy.
No, it is not recognized as a creed of the Orthodox churches and and generally forbidden to be used in their liturgy.

I think we are talking past each other. If I say I don't see the Apostles' Creed as a creed in the technical sense, that doesn't mean I reject its teaching. That's also the same as the Orthodox. They are using the liturgy of St John Chrystostom, which uses the 381 Creed, not the variants of 325. So yes, they are technically "forbidden" from using it in their liturgy for the simple fact that they are forbidden to add to Chrysostom's liturgy.
If the Athanasian Creed is essentially taken word-for-word from Augustine, I would be reluctant to criticize it. But that's just me.

Again, as I've said many times in this thread, I am not saying it is wrong. Just not as good as anything produced by Gregory of Nazianzus or Basil (though Basil died 2 years before the Constantinople Council).
 
That's a bit of a head scratcher coming from a Protestant.
Well, I don't know why. If we were talking about the sacraments or matters related to ecclesiology, I might understand your confusion. But we're talking about the doctrine of the Trinity and Christology. And on that, Reformed Protestants are thoroughly Augustinian.
 
The Pseudo-Athanasian creed is basically a chanted form of the Carolignian Shield. That's fine. I've actually used that shield in evangelism a few times. It's not a good theological method, though. That's why the 381 Creed is much superior.
 
Well, I don't know why. If we were talking about the sacraments or matters related to ecclesiology, I might understand your confusion. But we're talking about the doctrine of the Trinity and Christology. And on that, Reformed Protestants are thoroughly Augustinian.
I thought you were saying something more broad about the acceptability of Augustine's theology, but even on the locus of the trinity much of Augustine's language has gotten a cold reception among the reformed.
 
For what it's worth, I did an analytical review of De Trinitate. Augustine made some important moves, but he is by no means my first choice on the Trinity. His knowledge of Greek was sketchy and he almost certainly was ignorant of Hebrew.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top