Why Does the Nicene Creed Still Matter Today?
Imagine standing in a church somewhere in the world today. There, millions of people recite the same words—words first formulated more than 1,600 years ago.
That is the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE to respond to Arianism—which held that Jesus was not fully divine—and refined at the Council of Constantinople in 381 CE, this confession of faith affirms:
“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth…” and “Jesus Christ, the only Son of God… of one substance (homoousios, sharing the same divine essence) with the Father” (Council of Nicaea 325; Council of Constantinople 381; McGuckin 2010; Baghos 2019).
For Christians, this creed forms the foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity. From an Islamic perspective, however, such a formulation is often seen as conflicting with the concept of tawḥīd—the absolute oneness of God as emphasized in the Qur’an (Q. 112:1–4).
The question is: must this difference always function as a boundary that separates? Or could it instead become a starting point for understanding how each tradition interprets the oneness of God?
This article argues that the Nicene Creed is not only a doctrinal boundary but can also serve as a bridge for Christian–Muslim dialogue—especially when understood historically, theologically, and contextually within a plural society such as Indonesia.
A Dramatic Historical Background
The Nicene Creed emerged from intense debates about the identity of Jesus Christ. Arianism taught that Jesus was a created being—exalted, yet not equal with God the Father. If this view were accepted, the divinity of Christ would become relative rather than absolute.
The Council of Nicaea rejected this view by introducing a crucial term: homoousios (“of the same essence”), affirming that the Son shares the same divine essence as the Father. This term emphasizes unity of being, not a biological relationship as is often misunderstood (Baghos 2019; McGrath 2017).
Interestingly, when Islam emerged in the seventh century, these debates did not disappear but entered a new context. Christian theologians living under Islamic rule—such as John of Damascus and Abū Rā’iṭah al-Takrītī—faced the challenge of explaining the Trinity to a Muslim audience that strongly emphasized divine unity.
To do so, they carefully translated Greek theological concepts into Arabic. Terms such as dhāt (essence) and ṣifāt (attributes) were used to explain that distinctions within the Trinity do not imply multiple gods, but rather a way of understanding the unity of God (Keating 2006a, 54; Griffith 2008; Reynolds 2018, 112).
Al-Takrītī himself cautiously employed the term al-tathlīth (Trinity), though he often avoided it due to its connotation of “three gods,” which is strongly rejected in the Qur’an. Instead, he preferred terms such as jawhar (substance) and aqānīm (persons) to explain divine reality (Swanson 2009, 63–68).
This historical insight is crucial: the early Church’s formulation of the Trinity already involved an effort of translation—one that remains essential for interreligious dialogue today.
Theological Foundations and Points of Contact with Islam
As a starting point for dialogue, it is important to understand that the Nicene Creed does not aim to divide the oneness of God but rather to safeguard it within the framework of Christian faith. When the early Church affirmed that Jesus is “of one substance” (homoousios) with the Father, it was not claiming multiple gods, but asserting that Christ’s divinity belongs fully within the one God.
Here lies both the tension and the opportunity for dialogue with Islam. For Muslims, tawḥīd emphasizes absolute and indivisible divine unity. Christianity, on the other hand, speaks of unity understood relationally within the Trinity. This difference is not merely terminological misunderstanding, but a fundamentally different theological framework.
Nevertheless, significant points of contact exist. Both the Nicene Creed and Islamic teaching begin with the confession of one God as Creator of heaven and earth. Moreover, the Qur’an gives Jesus (‘Īsā) a special place—as the Word of God (Q. 3:45), born of a virgin, and associated with eschatological hope.
These commonalities do not erase differences, but they create a shared space where dialogue can begin without immediately entering the most sensitive issues. Dialogue, in this sense, is not about harmonizing doctrines, but about understanding how each tradition speaks about the same divine reality it affirms as one.
From Polemic to Constructive Dialogue
Historically, the Nicene Creed has often functioned as a “boundary marker” distinguishing Christianity from other traditions, including Islam. Islamic rejection of the Trinity and the crucifixion (Q. 4:157) makes the affirmation of Christ’s divinity a central point of tension (Griffith 2008; Thomas 2013).
However, contemporary approaches to interreligious dialogue suggest that beginning with points of conflict often hinders understanding. Senbetu’s (2014) study in Addis Ababa shows that dialogue becomes more productive when it starts from less controversial themes—such as the eschatological role of Jesus—before addressing more sensitive issues.
This approach aligns with what is known in comparative theology as “comparative reading,” where theological concepts are not immediately contrasted but first understood within their own internal frameworks. For instance, the Christian concept of the Logos can be compared—analogically, not identically—with the Islamic understanding of God’s Word manifested in the Qur’an (Reynolds 2018; Keating 2006b, 142).
Thinkers such as Catherine Cornille (2013) and Miroslav Volf (2011) further emphasize the importance of a hermeneutical approach in explaining doctrinal beliefs. In this perspective, the Nicene Creed is not a rigid formula that closes dialogue, but a theological narrative that can be rearticulated without losing its substance. Dialogue, therefore, does not require compromising faith, but calls for openness in expressing that faith to others.
Toward the Indonesian Context: From Theory to Practice
If these approaches provide a theoretical framework, the next question is how they can be applied in a real context such as Indonesia. Here, the Nicene Creed is no longer merely a historical document, but a source of practical reflection for interreligious relations.
In a society marked by both diversity and religious sensitivity, approaches that emphasize doctrinal debate alone are often ineffective, especially at the grassroots level. When differences are sharpened without fostering understanding, what emerges is not dialogue, but polarization.
Thus, what is needed is an approach that balances fidelity to one’s faith with openness to others. In Indonesia, various models of dialogue—especially those emphasizing shared monotheism—can be seen as concrete efforts to translate theological reflection into social practice.
Dialogue or Apologetics? The Case of Roni and Soru in Indonesia
In Indonesia, debates about Christian–Muslim dialogue are not merely theoretical but are reflected in concrete theological approaches. A notable example is the contrast between K.A.M. Jusuf Roni and Esra Alfred Soru.
Roni develops what can be described as a contextual-dialogical approach. Through his concept of “parallelism dialogue,” he encourages dialogue to begin from common ground—particularly the shared belief in one God (kalimatun sawā’). He even proposes a “Christology without the Trinity,” or “Kalam Christology,” as an attempt to express Christian faith in terms more accessible to Muslims (Roni 2005; 2014).
This approach has clear practical strengths. In a plural society often marked by identity-based tensions, beginning from shared beliefs can open wider channels of communication, especially at the grassroots level. Roni rightly observes that many conflicts arise not from theological differences themselves, but from the lack of mutual understanding.
However, his approach also raises serious theological concerns. Soru critiques this model, arguing that translating Christian doctrine into the categories of Islamic theology risks reducing its core content. He suggests that “Christology without the Trinity” tends toward unitarianism or dynamic monarchianism, thereby departing from orthodox Christian teaching on the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Soru 2011).
This contrast reveals not merely a methodological difference, but two distinct theological orientations. Roni prioritizes dialogue—even if it requires conceptual reinterpretation—while Soru emphasizes doctrinal boundaries as an expression of fidelity to tradition, even at the cost of limiting dialogue.
This tension reflects a classic dilemma in interreligious dialogue: how far can faith be translated into another tradition’s conceptual framework without losing its identity? Overemphasis on contextualization risks theological reduction, while overemphasis on doctrinal purity risks turning dialogue into mere apologetics.
Thus, the case of Roni and Soru suggests that Christian–Muslim dialogue in Indonesia requires an integrative approach—one that combines theological clarity with communicative openness. In this framework, the Nicene Creed can remain a foundation of Christian faith while being articulated in ways that foster honest and respectful conversation.
Conclusion: Not a Barrier, but an Invitation
This article has shown that the Nicene Creed functions not only as a doctrinal boundary distinguishing Christianity from other traditions, but also as a potential bridge for constructive dialogue with Islam. It affirms Christian identity—especially regarding the Trinity—while opening space for conversation through shared belief in one Creator God and reverence for Jesus.
The theological differences between the Trinity and tawḥīd cannot—and should not—be eliminated. Rather, honest acknowledgment of these differences forms the basis for mature and respectful dialogue. In this sense, the Nicene Creed should not be seen as a wall of separation, but as an invitation to understand how Christian faith speaks about divine unity.
In the Indonesian context, this perspective is particularly relevant. The Nicene Creed can function as:
1.A reaffirmation of Christian identity,
2.A starting point for dialogue grounded in monotheism, and
3.An ethical framework for building peaceful interreligious relations without falling into syncretism.
Retrieving classical theological traditions such as the Nicene Creed is therefore not a step backward, but a way of deepening faith while expanding the space for encounter. True dialogue does not erase differences, but transforms them into opportunities for deeper understanding and more humane coexistence. []
References:
- ·Baghos, Mario. 2019. The Historical Context of the Nicene Creed. Sydney: St Andrew’s Greek Orthodox Theological College.
- ·Cornille, Catherine. 2013. The Im-Possibility of Interreligious Dialogue. New York: Crossroad.
- ·Griffith, Sidney H. 2008. The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims in the World of Islam. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- ·John, Arun. 2025. “The Nicene Creed Through the Lens of Interfaith Engagement.” Diocese in Europe, Church of England. November 6. https://www.europe.anglican.org/news/latest-news/nicene-creed-through-lens-interfaith-engagement.
- ·Keating, Sandra Toenies. 2006. Defending the “People of Truth” in the Early Islamic Period: The Apologetics of Abu Ra’ita al-Takriti. Leiden: Brill.
- ·———. 2006. “The Nature of Theological Dialogue in the Early Islamic Period.” In The Encounter of Eastern Christianity with Early Islam, edited by Emmanouela Grypeou, Mark Swanson, and David Thomas, 135–150. Leiden: Brill.
- ·McGrath, Alister E. 2017. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 6th ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
- ·McGuckin, John Anthony. 2010. The Path of Christianity. Downers Grove: IVP Academic.
- ·Reynolds, Gabriel Said. 2018. The Qur’an and the Bible: Text and Commentary. New Haven: Yale University Press.
- ·Roni, K.A.M. Jusuf. 2005. “Tauhid sebagai ‘Meeting Point’ Kristen-Islam.” Paper presented at JRC—Bethany Solo Collaboration Party, Solo, July 19.
- ·———. 2014. Pemikiran Ulang Kristologi di Indonesia. Jakarta: Jusuf Roni Center.
- ·Senbetu, Tibebu T. 2014. “Being Nicene in the Context of Christian-Muslim Dialogue in Addis Ababa.” International Journal of Orthodox Theology 5, no. 2. http://ijah.cgrd.org/images/Vol5No2/1.pdf.
- ·Soru, Esra Alfred. 2011. “Telaah Teologis terhadap Ajaran Doktrin Tritunggalnya Abuna Prof. Dr. K.A.M. Jusuf Roni.” Albert Rumampuk Blog, February 2011. https://albertrumampuk.blogspot.com/2011/02/telaah-teologis-terhadap-ajaran-doktrin.html.
- ·Swanson, Mark N. 2009. “Apologetics, Catechesis, and the Question of Audience in ‘On the Triune Nature of God’ (Fī Tathlīth Allāh al-Wāḥid) by Abū Rā’iṭah al-Takrītī.” In Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, Volume 1 (600–900), edited by David Thomas and Barbara Roggema, 61–72. Leiden: Brill.
- ·Thomas, David, ed. 2013. Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History. Leiden: Brill.
- ·Volf, Miroslav. 2011. Allah: A Christian Response. New York: HarperOne.