If one does not accept what the writers of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed meant by it, can one be said to adhere to and affirm and believe
and confess it?

Also, if they don’t also accept the anathemas pronounced against those who reject the veneration of icons, can they be said to affirm the Seventh Ecumenical Council?

CMP wrote: The various creeds of Christendom have aided the Christian church in the formulation of our faith through the centuries. They are not the Bible and they have never been considered equal with Scripture in any way by any orthodox believer.

If by “they” you mean the Creeds of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and if you changed the initial “o” in “orthodox” to a capital “O” (as in the [Eastern] Orthodox Church), I don’t think you would be able to write “never” or “any.”

Regarding baptism, a couple of books that helped me appreciate different perspectives are:

Understanding Four Views on Baptism (Zondervan, 2007)

David F. Wright, What has Infant Baptism done to Baptism? (Paternoster, 2005)

I hope that everyone finds time to read this one:

Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church (Eerdmans, 2008), 912 pages!
http://eerdmans.com/shop/product.asp?p_key=9780802827487

What I am saying is that it was, in my perspective, a very simplistic understanding. The creed expressed the fact of the saving effects of baptism without explaining exactly what was meant. Later, as the church dealt with this more fully, it came to mean many other things depending on what tradition you follow. To some the saving effects mean that it removes original sin. To others it enters them into a covenant community. To others, still, it means that baptism, like confession, is a visible representation of their faith, and, in this, it saves.

Are you saying that we should just go to its undeveloped form and not accept any of these interpretations? If so, that is ok, I guess. But then you just end up with where I was in the original comments.

It seems to me that if you’re going to claim belief in a 4th century creed, then you need to sign up for the 4th century understanding. If you disagree with the 4th century folks, don’t disingenuously make their words mean something other than what they wrote them to mean. Make up your own creed in that case, and don’t hang off the shirt-tales of people you don’t even agree with.

On the other hand, if you want to claim the 4th century folks believe like you do, well I’d like to see that backed up.

Baptism was, in the first century a primary way of making a confession of faith and conversion. Do you doubt this?

You should not, all traditions can agree on this point. You would add to this that it also have regenerative power in and of itself. I would certainly disagree. But the point that I made earlier is that the creed does not have to be forced into a particular theological model. That is the beauty of many of the creeds, they say enough, without saying too much.

You say:

Baptism saves in that it has an actual regerative effect.

I say:

Baptism saves in that it is the first-fruit of salvation thereby evidencing salvation. Just like “calling on the name of the Lord.” It is not your voice or articulation of the word that actually save, but the voice and articulation of the words evidence a condition of the heart. Such is baptism.

But again, the point is not whose interpretation of baptism is correct, but that the creeds don’t define it either way.

I don’t think you miscommunicated anything. Your point was quite clear.

By giving it a different meaning and saying baptism also means this and that it has lost its meaning. I’m not saying that beliefs aren’t important or that a confession of Christ isn’t also important, but baptism as understood and practiced by early Christians wasn’t just symbolic. Baptism had a real effect on the soul of person being baptized.

ChadS

I think the writings of pre-Nicene and Nicene fathers clearly indicate that Baptism was almost universally seen as regenerative at the time. You may disagree, of course. Regardless, this discrepancy makes that clause of the Nicene Creed problematic for ecumenical use, yes? If we all say the same words but mean different things by them, then we cannot be said to all accept the same creed.