Vote: the nicene creed shud be restored to cf or not?

[DeaconDean]

To clarify my position, here is where I am coming from:

"Let us not be deluded into thinking that the Southern Baptist Convention can integrate Southern Baptist thought by fiat of creedal declarations. Is it a response to the Southern Baptist Convention's more narrowly defined version of the Baptist Faith & Message recently adopted in Orlando, Fla.? No, actually it's a statement published in the Baptist Standard April 30, 1925, when the SBC stood on the brink of adopting the first Baptist Faith & Message document in Memphis, Tenn. The warning was penned by John Ellington White, at the time pastor of First Baptist Church of Anderson, S.C., and president of Anderson College...On one hand, "No creed but the Bible" has been Baptists' mantra from their emergence as a distinctly identifiable group. Yet on the other hand, Baptists from the beginning often have written statements of faith to let others know what they believe...Baptists had been persecuted for not adhering to the authority of the state church and for insisting that every believer should have direct access to God without coercion from church leaders and without being required to work through a human intermediary or subscribe to a human-written creed.
___Historically, Baptists have shunned creeds," Alan Lefever said. In England, early Baptists "refused to adopt a confession. They said we need no confession but the Bible...And when the SBC was formed in 1845, no confession of faith or creed was adopted. W.B. Johnson, first president of the SBC, explained: "We have constructed for our basis no new creed, acting in this manner upon a Baptist aversion for all creeds but the Bible."
___Prior to this time, numerous confessions of faith had been written by individual Baptists, local churches and associations. In fact, in the early days, Baptist churches and pastors would exchange statements of faith as part of the process of calling new pastors, McBeth said.
___The tension over confessions of faith also surfaced in early America as the so-called Regular Baptists and Separate Baptists eventually came together, McBeth said. "The Separates insisted that there be no confession, but the Regulars had a confession."
___To resolve the difference, both groups agreed the confession of faith would be "advisory only" and that no one would be required to subscribe to every point, McBeth said.
___The SBC existed for 80 years--more than half its current life--without adopting any confession of faith. If you read the preamble to the (1925) Baptist Faith & Message, it basically says you can disagree with all this and it is OK. The preamble is the safety valve for Southern Baptists."

"Baptists have debated creeds & confessions for centuries", By: Mark Wingfield, Managing Editor, The Baptist Standard

http://www.baptiststandard.com/2000/6_26/pages/creeds.html

I will not be made to affirm, or otherwise be made to, swear to any Creed or confession. Whether it is the Southern Baptist Faith and Message of 2000, or the Apostles Creed, or the Nicene Creed.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

To go further, Dr. Jimmy Draper once said:

A Creed is not a revelation of divine truth; it is not a rule of faith and practice,
but it is a help in both. Creeds have no authority over conscience.​

Ernest Reisinger wrote:

DANGERS OF CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS​

One of the dangers of Creeds and Confessions is using them to bind the conscience. They must never be used to bind the conscience. They can only bind the conscience so far as they are biblical, and they bind only those who voluntarily subscribe to them.

Another danger is allowing Creeds to usurp the place of authority. We do not worship the Creeds. The Bible is our final authority and standard, and it alone. By it we must prove all things. We must not exalt the Creeds above, or equal to the Bible. Creeds are the products of men. However, the respected Creeds are the products of many holy, competent, and seasoned men. The Creeds have proved a safeguard for Christians. They are not independent assertions of truth. They are derived from, and subordinate to, the Bible as the only source and standard of Christian authority.

The Creeds themselves warn against the danger of Creeds. "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men as such are in anything contrary to His word or not contained in it. So that to believe such doctrines, or obey such commands out of conscience is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith and absolute and blind obedience is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also." (Philadelphia Confession of Faith, 1742, Chapter 21, part 2).

http://www.reformedreader.org/rbb/reisinger/goodnews02.htm

I rest my case.

For a list of the oldest beliefs held by the oldest Baptists in America, I refer you to The Philadelphia Baptist Association Circular Letters, circa 1729-1900. Found here:

http://www.geocities.com/baptist_documents/pennsylvania.cl.index.html

And one final word, if my stance on being made to affirm, or swear by any "creed or confession" has offended any person in the Fundamentalist room, I offer my sincerest and heart-felt apology. Please forgive me for all my shortcomings.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[WarEagle]

The fact still remains, both "creeds" were written by men. Written by men in the "Catholic" church. Now, you can bow down to the written word of men if you want, but as a supporter of "Sola Scriptura," God's word, the Holy Bible, is my final authority. Not some "creed."

So then, if you deny the tenets of the Nicene Creed, why did you break the rules by posting as a Christian under the old rules which said that you had to affirm the Nicene Creed to be allowed to post as a Christian?

More to the point, what are you going to do if this rule is brought back?

Now you show me where the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed was "qeopneustoV" (theopnenstos/God-breathed/inspired -2 Tim. 3:16) and I'll change my stance, otherwise:

I didn't say they were. I said that the tenets of the two creeds are Biblical. Are you now denying that scripture is God breathed?

Again, I cannot discuss that.

I see. So then, you have no problem making false accusations against me, but when it comes to being a man and backing them up, all of a sudden, you can't discuss it?

What ministry? The only thing I've heard from you is constant griping about the "rules", doctrine, the actions of the moderators, etc.

First of all, I'm not the only one here who has a problem and I think you know that.

Second, anybody here can click on my profile and go to "see all posts" and see that what you're saying is not true.

The only time I bring it up is when it's made an issue, such as this thread.

Third, yes, I do have a ministry here. Another poster and I led a young man to the Lord here a few months ago. He now posts on another message board that the two of us post on and I'm very happy to see his growth.

I had one person leave Roman Catholicism and tell me that it was because I sat down with her (cyber-wise, that is) and went through the scriptures comparing the doctrines and practices of Roman Catholicism with what the Bible says.

I've been able to answer a lot of questions and plant a lot of seeds.

Besides, people are still repping me for my posts and sending me positive PMs, so I guess they must see something good in it. Maybe that's my problem. Maybe I just worry about what the wrong people think.

Since you seem to believe that this passage is restricted only to "government," so be it. I'll not argue with you.

Good.

So am I brother. Our Southern Baptist church does not recognize "elders" per se, but being a Deacon, I'm recognized as one in my church. And I have served my church in the role of "Associate Pastor," while serving as the Chairman of the Deacons, so I guess you could consider me a "presbuteriou" (presbuterion/elder - 1 Tim. 4:14). Licensed and ordained by my church in 2000.

Good for you. It looks like our credentials are more or less identical.

WE, for what its worth, for all your constant griping, complaining, and such, your simply just not not worth it.

Like I said, anybody here can go to my profile and see that what you're saying is untrue, just like your claim that I "tore you down".

If what I have seen here is typical your ministry both here and in your church,....

And from what I've seen here, I'm not sure I'd want you there.

If I'm as bad as you say, then those churches who keep on inviting me to preach and teach sure must be dumb.

 

[WarEagle]

To go further, Dr. Jimmy Draper once said:



Ernest Reisinger wrote:



http://www.reformedreader.org/rbb/reisinger/goodnews02.htm

I rest my case.

For a list of the oldest beliefs held by the oldest Baptists in America, I refer you to The Philadelphia Baptist Association Circular Letters, circa 1729-1900. Found here:

http://www.geocities.com/baptist_documents/pennsylvania.cl.index.html

And one final word, if my stance on being made to affirm, or swear by any "creed or confession" has offended any person in the Fundamentalist room, I offer my sincerest and heart-felt apology. Please forgive me for all my shortcomings.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Dean, which of the tenets, specifically, of the two creeds do you disagree with so strongly?

 

[desmalia]

I think it's extremely important to remember the primary purpose of the creed. At the time it was drawn up there was a growing number of apostates calling themselves Christians. The creed drew a line between their heresies and the true faith. No creed is perfect. But they do serve a valuable purpose. On CF we see a massive post modernist and universalist movement with a very, very strong voice. As believers, we can stand up and draw the line here too, or we can watch silently as the name of Christ is twisted, distorted, and slandered by so many who claim to know Him. It's not about forcing people to live by one creed or another. It's about allowing a statement represent your faith in the Jesus Christ of Scripture, not some other false Jesus. Especially in an online setting it is very hard to "test the fruits" of the people who post here. And worse, we're required to accept anyone who sports a Christian icon as a true believer, even when they spout other worldly doctrines that strongly suggest otherwise. At least the creed is a starting point. I mean for goodness sake, we're at a point where a member can call himself a Christian, while also saying that he does not believe Christ was ever resurrected. Does that trouble anyone else here???

Yes, as WE has pointed out, there were serious problems before the creed was removed. But once it was removed, it was like a dam broke. If this site is ever going to have any stability, some lines will have to be drawn. But that really comes down to the direction staff and ownership has for the site.

 

[WarEagle]

I think it's extremely important to remember the primary purpose of the creed. At the time it was drawn up there was a growing number of apostates calling themselves Christians. The creed drew a line between their heresies and the true faith. No creed is perfect. But they do serve a valuable purpose. On CF we see a massive post modernist and universalist movement with a very, very strong voice. As believers, we can stand up and draw the line here too, or we can watch silently as the name of Christ is twisted, distorted, and slandered by so many who claim to know Him. It's not about forcing people to live by one creed or another. It's about allowing a statement represent your faith in the Jesus Christ of Scripture, not some other false Jesus. Especially in an online setting it is very hard to "test the fruits" of the people who post here. And worse, we're required to accept anyone who sports a Christian icon as a true believer, even when they spout other worldly doctrines that strongly suggest otherwise. At least the creed is a starting point. I mean for goodness sake, we're at a point where a member can call himself a Christian, while also saying that he does not believe Christ was ever resurrected. Does that trouble anyone else here???

Yes, as WE has pointed out, there were serious problems before the creed was removed. But once it was removed, it was like a dam broke. If this site is ever going to have any stability, some lines will have to be drawn. But that really comes down to the direction staff and ownership has for the site.

I agree. There needs to be an objective standard to determine who is and who isn't a Christian or, at the very least, who holds to Christian orthodoxy and who doesn't.

Historically, that has always been the main purpose of the Nicene Creed.

Go to General Apologetics sometime. There are so many atheists and mockers there who are claiming to be Christians just to play games, to mock Christianity, and to deceive those who don't know Christian doctrine well enough to know that what they're saying is nonsense.

Because the rule was never enforced when it was in place, that set the table for a lot of the problems we're seeing now and after the rule was removed, I think you've described it perfectly: it was like a dam broke It's now a doctrinal trainwreck where anybody can say anything they want and misrepresent Christ in any way they want to and they know that nothing is going to happen to them.

Because of this, GA has gotten to be like the 700 level at the old Veterans' Stadium in Philly.

So many people have left Christian Forums for other Christian message boards. One of the boards I'm on was so backed up that it took them weeks to register all of the new members coming from ChristianForums. Scores of moderators resigned and left because of the downward spiral of ChristianForums.

There are even several new message boards, one of which I'm a member of, that have sprung up just for ex-ChristianForums members.

And yet, in spite of all of this, it never occurs to ChristianForums or the ChristianForums moderators to ask "what are we doing wrong that is driving all of these productive posters away". It's always somebody else's fault and never theirs.

It got so bad a few months ago that ChristianForums actually had to take "Christian" out of their name.

I'm not naive. I know I'm not going to be here much longer. But what they don't understand is that that won't get rid of the problem. It will just be one less person pointing out that there is a problem.

I don't get as upset about this as I do because I don't like ChristianForums. I get upset about it because I do believe in ChristianForums and in what it has the potential to be, if they ever decided they wanted to run it like a Christian ministry.

If ChristianForums has any hope of ceasing to be a joke in the online Christian community, then they've got to get serious about sound doctrine and that's going to have to start with drawing a line in the sand with the Nicene Creed.

 

[kiwimac]

And then there are the Quakers et al, who simply will NOT accept any creedal statement.

 

[WarEagle]

And then there are the Quakers et al, who simply will NOT accept any creedal statement.

But even if they have a moral problem affirming a creed (although, for the life of me, I can't imagine why), you can still go through the tenets of that creed and ask them if they affirm the individual tenets.

 

[kiwimac]

Quakers will not affirm ANY set of beliefs because, for Quakers, the most important part of the relationship between humans and God cannot be written down, it is experiential.

 

[desmalia]

Quakers will not affirm ANY set of beliefs because, for Quakers, the most important part of the relationship between humans and God cannot be written down, it is experiential.

Do they reject the Scriptures too then?

 

[kiwimac]

The Bible is not a creedal statement.

 

[desmalia]

The Bible is not a creedal statement.

No, but it is written word.

 

[kiwimac]

For Quakers the Bible is secondary to the Spirit of God. Creedal statements don't even make the 'list'.

 

[desmalia]

For Quakers the Bible is secondary to the Spirit of God. Creedal statements don't even make the 'list'.

So, if one had a spritual experience and it contradicted Scripture, which is considered true? Experience or Scripture?

 

[WarEagle]

For Quakers the Bible is secondary to the Spirit of God. Creedal statements don't even make the 'list'.

It might come secondary for Quakers, but if you read 2 John, we see that there is an objective doctrinal standard and the only way that can be objectively and authoritatively defined is by the word of God.

It comes right back to the same argument: does ChristianForums want to cater to Quakers at the risk of abandoning sound doctrine with some? Or do they want to have an objective and authoritative standard to go by in order to help protect sound doctrine and make the "Christian" in ChristianForums more than just an inaccurate title that people snicker at?

 

[kiwimac]

Sounds like you want to make sure Quakers are not a part of CF or that you do not consider them Christians.

 

[kiwimac]

So, if one had a spritual experience and it contradicted Scripture, which is considered true? Experience or Scripture?

Experience as mediated by scripture.

 

[WarEagle]

Sounds like you want to make sure Quakers are not a part of CF or that you do not consider them Christians.

No, I'd love for Quakers to be a part of ChristianForums and as to whether or not they're Christians, I believe that the denomination, as a whole is extremely liberal and there are some things there that are cause for concern, but over all, it does fall within the bounds of orthodoxy and it is reasonable to consider it a Christian denomination.

Now, if you mean individual Quakers, I don't know each individual Quaker, so I can't say.

What good is having the Nicene Creed as a standard if people are going to get around saying that they agree with the tenets expressed therein?

It wouldn't be a standard, it would just be a suggestion.

But when ChristianForums had the Nicene Creed as a standard before, the idea, allegedly, was to have an objective way to determine who is a Christian, not for the purposes of salvation, but for the purposes of clarification.

It was never meant to declare entire denominations Christian or Unchristian.

 

[kiwimac]

But that is what it is doing. Quakers as a whole will not agree to ANY creedal statements.

 

[WarEagle]

But that is what it is doing. Quakers as a whole will not agree to ANY creedal statements.

I started a thread over in the anabaptist forums to ask Quakers a doctrinal question for the purposes of showing that they will answer.

So far, only one has responded, but he seemed pretty happy to answer, which blows your theory out of the water.

For the record, when I asked him if he believed in the resurrection, he said no, which, if the Nicene Creed were in place as the standard, would exclude him from posting as a Christian. But that's another topic, I suppose.