None. Scripture tells us all we need to know. The new believer should be referring back to God's inspired written word for the formation of their faith. Mature faith takes time and cannot be had by memorizing a statement of faith some church wrote.
2 Timothy 3: 14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
Scripture is authoritative and anything doctrinal needs to be referred back to that for support. If it's not found well supported and/or clearly spelled out in Scripture, the teaching needs to be jettisoned.
Creeds serve a purpose when the unwashed masses are illiterate or have no access to the Bible to give some grounding, but they can never and should never even be considered an option to replace memorization of Scripture.
Which, BTW, I do recall memorizing creeds as a Catholic. I cannot recall EVER being told to or encouraged to memorize Scripture itself.
Answer all of the questions I posed. Are you saying that the Nicean Creed had no part in defining the criteria upon which the Canon was established to bring you the Scripture that you say is exclusively authoritative?
It's interesting that you copy our Reformed friends who also see the Nicene Creed as holding the core of what Christians believe. That is why we share with them the belief in One God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The Nicene Creed was in response to the Arians, which most of the church once was, which held that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by God, that God the Father and the Son did not exist together eternally (contra Mic. 5:2; cf. Ps. 90:2), and which was a controversy that began to rise in the late 3rd century and extended over the greater part of the 4th century.
Of the roughly three hundred bishops in attendance at the Council of Nicea, only three bishops did not sign the Nicene Creed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
The Nicene Creed has been normative to the Anglican Church, Assyrian Church of the East, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox churches, the Roman Catholic Church including the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Old Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church and most Protestant denominations.
There are two versions, that of 325 and 381, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#Comparison_between_Creed_of_325_and_Creed_of_381 and which has also different versisn today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed_in_current_use
That most all of Protestantism (actually all according to warranted definition) hold to it, as well as certain other core salvific truths, is a testimony against the idea that a centralized infallible head (which the scribes and Pharisees were not) is necessary for unity and perpetuating truth. See http://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.com/2011/09/unity-under-sola-scriptura-versus-rc.html
The one line in the 381 version that is interpreted different by us is, “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church,” as regards what constitutes apostolic.
The Apostles’ Creed came circa 5th c. and is briefer.
There is nothing wrong with conciliar creeds, any more than there is with us stating our beliefs, as long as they are Scriptural and subject to Scripture, and do not take the place of it.
The Wesminster Confession, the prime Prot. statement on faith, says in part, “It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God.”
But as Scripture is the only transcendent material source of truth on faith and morals that is is wholly inspired of God, so it is the standard for faith and morals.
As far as the NC influencing the canon, insofar as the NC was Scriptural and the complimentary of Scripture disallows real contradiction, it would, but that is not how Scripture was established. Nor does being the instruments or stewards of Holy Writ (which Rome presumes they were), confer assured infallibility, for Israel was, (Rm. 3:2; cf. 9:4) was were reproved for teaching the extra Scriptural “tradition of the elders” as doctrine. (Mk. 7:1-13) And truth was preserved with a Romish type AIM.
See PeaceByJesus post at top here: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19795707&postID=5956412264159965452&page=1&token=1315089884350