The Creed Has No Atonement Theory

The Nicene Creed has no atonement theory. This means that the ecumenical definition of orthodoxy regarding atonement theories is not as black and white as modern protestants often assume, particularly in the unquestioned acceptance of penal substitution as the only valid theory. In this video, I discuss this reality and what it means for atonement theories as a whole.
Enjoy my work? Buy me a coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/MorrisonSDM

[@richardmcgarvey6919]

Thank you for this! ...and we can trust the time a clock gives us without knowing how each clock piece works together.

[@justindavis2711]

Funnily enough, it has no mention of eternal conscious torment either.

[@tomheckmann9004]

Thank you. Very coherent and clarifying.

[@StephenDMorrison]

Thanks for watching!

[@dennisehrman1813]

When the early church fathers were assembling the Apostles or the Nicene creed, were there discussions as to whether the atonement should be included, because they could not agree on an expression of once for all, or a works based salvation, so it was excluded?

[@thehappyheretic2136]

What were some ways early Christians expressed their faiths, a declaration accepted by others? For example, many today hinge salvation on sinners' prayer or confessing a creed to others by joining the church.

[@StephenDMorrison]

I'd say it was typically baptism and joining the community officially. Though I am sure it changed throughout the various periods of history. I am not an expert in that question, but it would be interesting to study it!

[@ronfeledichuk531]

The erroneous PSA is called the "Gospel" by the reformed groups. Amazing to not see the Gospel proclaimed in the early Christian Symbols of Faith.

[@liverly12]

Christ’s atonement through his blood sacrifice,is literally the through line of the entire whole of the scriptures. Everything‘s a mess and everything is Emmaus

[@crafterman2345]

I do not think it's a heresy to reject penal substitutionary atonement. However, if someone is not grounded in an orthodox tradition, they will most certainly drift into a plethora of dangerous teachings. The only way to reject it and be part of an orthodox tradition is to be Eastern Orthodox, which you are clearly not.

[@StephenDMorrison]

EO does not have a monopoly on orthodoxy.

[@jeanleclerc4558]

​@@StephenDMorrison May I express my heartfelt appreciation and encouragement to you, my brother in Christ. Christianity is not about “DOING” only. Christianity is about “BEING”. In fact, Christianity is about “being” because Christianity is about ADORATION, CONTEMPLATION, standing before God, living before God in a worshipful attitude or inner way of living, which in fact is “being” and not “doing”. And this is about being rooted in the Mysterious Work of God for us, in and through us. So, Christianity is not so much about “studying” the Bible as it is about “contemplating” the Bible, its message and its Christ. Studying the Bible is about “doing”. Nothing wrong with that in itself; but if we remain only at the level of “studying” we stay on the plain of the letter and of data to analyse and collect, in order to accomplish something, which is ”learning”. But Christianity is on a higher and deeper plain. In fact, Christianity is higher and deeper than just studying because it is “being” filled by Christ and entering into the Realm of the Spirit, in adoration of the God of the Bible. This is why Christianity is better caught than taught. In fact, Christianity is “caught” from only One. And that “One” is Christ himself drawing close to the soul, and touching it with his Life-Giving Spirit. In a few words: “It’s about being”. It’s not about “doing” only.