Nicene Creed -- what's yer beef?

[Rhamiel]

there are also millions of methodist world wide and they use the creed as well.
Not to play the numbers game, but between the Catholics, the Orthodox, the Anglicans, the Lutherans, the Methodist, Presbyterians add about a million members of the Church of the Nazarene.
what denominations are agianst the creed?
I am not saying it has to be part of every service, the Catholics have it at every Mass and I think it is a good idea, but even if it is not part of the service many denominations use it to describe the basics of what they believe in a clear fashion

 

[Tonks]

Interesting stats- the question really is, who is Protestant? There was a thread around here that was trying to hash it out. I was raised as an Evangelical Pentecostal, was later a Southern Baptist, and then went to an independent Christian church (related to the Campbellite movement). I used to consider myself Protestant (in the sense that I was anti-Catholic) but I didn't adhere to any creed. No creed but Christ and all that.

Some self-identify as Protestants, some don't, but it can and does seem like these anti-creed folks are the majority in certain areas of the U.S. I guess it depends on where you are.

Someone, somewhere (it may have even been this thread...dunno) that if one is talking "groupings" you have the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Western Christians that are not Roman Catholic (Protestants). At a macro level that works.

 

[Rhamiel]

DeaconDean

Believe in the Creed, but not scriptures. Hum...

heretics use the Bible, twist what it means and prevert the Christian faith.
Mormons use the Bible, cult leaders use the Bible, the creed is there to help people understand what the Bible says, it does not replace the scripture

 

[MrPolo]

So anyway, 110 million Anglicans plus 75 million Lutherans out of 300 million Protestants would be more than 50%, and it's close to 50% if we take the higher number of 400 million Protestants.[/COLOR][/B]

Yahoo Answers, for whatever paper it's written on that's worth, has the Anglicans at 73 million and Lutherans at 64 million, and all Protestants at closer to 500 million if you add em up. But whatever, carry on with the Creed talk.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

From my experience, many Protestants use the Creed or at least adhere to it. The one issue which I do not find Scriptural support is the following:

"of one essence with the Father"

That is indeed a can of worms:

1) No such language appears in Scripture;
2) I understand the concept derived from Eastern 'mystery' religions, and is an example of the inroads of paganism into the Christian church.

Dave

No, that's just plain wrong. The idea of essence is a normal philosophy concept that in the Greco-Roman world simply meant that things with the same essence were one being or entity.

If the Creed didn't say that the Father and the Son were of one essence, than the Creed would be implying tri-theism, not monotheism.

So it's absolutely essential that it's in there, otherwise then we really will be unbiblical.

 

[DeaconDean]

deleted

 

[Polycarp1]

Dean -- I sincerely hope you do NOT do so.

My argument would be: The Creed(s) can be abused, as your first post points out. The Bible can be abused, as I suggested above. Many of us consider you and ourselves to be brothers and sisters in Christ, holding steadfast to faith in Him, even though we do not subscribe to inerrancy -- or, for that matter, many another doctrinal distinctive that serves more to separate than to unite us: Papal encyclicals, the Lambeth Quadrilateral, Sola Scriptura, Sola Fidei, the "infilling of the Holy Spirit" in the Pentecostals' sense of what that means....

I'm finding your perspectives valuable and refreshing -- including the best clarification of what impact the Baptist Faith and Message is understood to have on SBC members that I've ever seen. Please leave them in place.

 

[Rhamiel]

No I am not lumping christians who believe in sola scripture in with the Mormons or the JH, I am not saying that the use of scritpure is heretical, I ment that heratics justify there views with quotes from the Bible, I was thinking of the Gnostics and the Pelagians and the Arian heresy, all of these groups quoted the Bible to gain support, the reason for the creed was to help people have an orthodox understanding of scripture, not to replace scripture

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

A born-again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ who

1. Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible;
2. Believes whatever the Bible says is so;
3. Judges all things by the Bible, and is judged only by the Bible, aka - "Sola Scriptura";
4. Affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith:
   • The doctrine of the Trinity
   • The incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, ascension into Heaven, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
   • The new birth through regeneration of the Holy Spirit
   • The resurrection of saints to life eternal
   • The resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death
   • The fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ;
5. Practices fidelity to that faith, and endeavors to preach it to every creature;
6. Exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that Faith, compromise with error, and apostasy from the Truth; and
7. Earnestly contends for the Faith once delivered.

Because I'm a Fundamentalist, and as a Fundamentalist, we believe in Sola Scriptura.

That's your creed. So, how can you say you are against creeds?

Creed. From the Latin "credo." The word means "I believe."
Creeds are statements of faith.
They are very biblical since they are all over the Bible.
"Jesus is Lord!"
"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God!"
"He is risen!"
All creeds....





Thank you.

Pax

- Josiah





.

 

[Hentenza]

That's your creed. So, how can you say you are against creeds?

Creed. From the Latin "credo." The word means "I believe."
Creeds are statements of faith.
They are very biblical since they are all over the Bible.
"Jesus is Lord!"
"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God!"
"He is risen!"
All creeds....





Thank you.

Pax

- Josiah





.

There is a difference between adopting and affirming.

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Also, it's not that the RCC or EOC put the Creed above scripture; it's merely a summary/affirmation of what we believe.

I mean, if someone walked up to me who had never heard of Jesus, never heard of Christianity and asked "What do you believe?" I would not hand them the Bible and walk away.

I would start with the Creed (brief summary of faith), then show them the Bible to back up the arguements in the Creed.

I know many people believe in the Nicene Creed; the numbers are not the issue.

I am interested in hearing from people who have arguements WITH the Creed. As in they take issue with something it says.

If your church recites it, well, God bless you.

I want to hear from those who have issues with it.

I learn more from those who disagree with me than those who agree with me.

 

[DeaconDean]

I am a man of my word.

I have deleted my prior posts.

Evidently, even saying that I believe in the principles laid out in the Fundamentalist definition, the Baptist definition, and the principles laid by A.A. Hodge, I have been accused of:

That's your creed.

My creed is the God-Breathed word, the Holy Bible.

God and His word are my ultimate authority in all things.

I shall now bow out of this discussion. I now know that certain "Protestant" views are not welcome here.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I have been accused of:

I'm not sure if I"m the one you are referring to.
I replied and asked you questions, back in post #11.
You didn't reply...


A creed, by definition, is a statement of what is believed.
It comes from the Latin, "credo" meaning "I believe...'

When it is professed, "Jesus is Lord!" - that's a creed.
When it is professed, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!" - that's a creed.
When it is professed, "I believe in the Bible" - that's a creed.

So, as I stated in post 11, I rather suspect that you don't disagree with the appropriateness of creeds.
My experience with Baptists and with Fundamentalists is that they don't at all shy away from saying what they believe.
Thus, I TRIED to engage you in a discussion of what about creeds that made you uncomfortable.
I strongly suspect it's not creeds, per se, since you've stated a few in this thread!
I SUSPECT it is the authority issue; and if so, you'd find nearly all Protestants (and even some others) in agreement with you.
If you discussed the issue, you MIGHT discover you aren't in a minority position at all, and that we quite respect and affirm your position.
But you need to converse so that we can determine what it is.

God Bless

... and also you.



- Josiah





.

 

[E.C.]

what denominations are agianst the creed?

I have met people that were of denominations who were against the Creed. I am not sure if the denominations at large was against it, but among the people I've met that were against it, many were: Evangelical, Pentecostal, Church of Christ, Adventist and I believe one Quaker and one Salvation Army person as well as a small minority of Baptists (may have been Independent, who knows?)

Again, I have no idea if the denominations mentioned above this line are at large against the Creed, but many people whom I've met said they were against it and members of a denomination mentioned above.

No I am not lumping christians who believe in sola scripture in with the Mormons or the JH, I am not saying that the use of scritpure is heretical, I ment that heratics justify there views with quotes from the Bible, I was thinking of the Gnostics and the Pelagians and the Arian heresy, all of these groups quoted the Bible to gain support, the reason for the creed was to help people have an orthodox understanding of scripture, not to replace scripture

I believe that what is gravely misunderstood, is that the Creed was born not to replace Scripture, but to some up Christianity in a nutshell (if that is ever possible).

It is true, Arius and Nestorius and all the other old time heretics did indeed corrupt Scripture to rationalize and validate their heresy. And the Church also quoted Scripture to repudiate and refute heresy. But it took a great heresy that infected about 99% of the Church, about two Ecumenical Councils and who knows how many letters and how much prayer for the Nicene Creed to be born.

 

[Albion]

I'm not sure if I"m the one you are referring to.
I replied and asked you questions, back in post #11.
You didn't reply...


A creed, by definition, is a statement of what is believed.
It comes from the Latin, "credo" meaning "I believe...'

When it is professed, "Jesus is Lord!" - that's a creed.
When it is professed, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!" - that's a creed.
When it is professed, "I believe in the Bible" - that's a creed.

So, as I stated in post 11, I rather suspect that you don't disagree with the appropriateness of creeds.
My experience with Baptists and with Fundamentalists is that they don't at all shy away from saying what they believe.
Thus, I TRIED to engage you in a discussion of what about creeds that made you uncomfortable.
I strongly suspect it's not creeds, per se, since you've stated a few in this thread!
I SUSPECT it is the authority issue; and if so, you'd find nearly all Protestants (and even some others) in agreement with you.
If you discussed the issue, you MIGHT discover you aren't in a minority position at all, and that we quite respect and affirm your position.
But you need to converse so that we can determine what it is.

Isn't the issue here that most people have a personal creed, yes, but what is opposed is the church imposing a creed of its own choosing upon the people, particularly when it's as a condition of membership?

 

[Rhamiel]

Albion

Isn't the issue here that most people have a personal creed

traditional christian creeds were never ment to be personal.

but what is opposed is the church imposing a creed of its own choosing upon the people, particularly when it's as a condition of membership?

why would you want to be part of a group if you do not believe what the group believes?

 

[Albion]

Albion traditional christian creeds were never ment to be personal.

Fine, but that misses the point. People, as CalJosiah noted, do have their own creeds, meaning that for them to say they are against all creeds is not exactly correct. They have their own; they merely object to the historic ones like the Nicene.

why would you want to be part of a group if you do not believe what the group believes?

Again, that is not the point. They may well agree to nearly all of what the "group" believes but still not think it correct for the visible church to make their acceptance of a creedal statement--any external creedal statement--a condition of church membership. This well-known principle, BTW, grows out of Baptistic opposition to the policies of other Protestant churches, not to Catholic practice.

 

[New_Wineskin]

Just a note -- the word "catholic" in this usage means "universal." Has nothing to do with the RCC.

So tell me, why does your faith take umbrage to the Nicene Creed?

*I* ( forget about my "faith" ) take umbrage with only one thing about the usage of that creed . And, you touched on it . If "catholic" means "universal" , there should be no insistance on using "catholic" *instead of* "universal" . There would be no footnote needed or any attempt to calm down people if universal was used . If they mean the same thing , just do it .

Other than that , I love it because it is highly vague on most points so that people can agree with it with a huge array of thinking about what each point means . I especially love the fact that the head honchos put their heads together to push the trinity idea and failed miserably because it doesn't limit the godhead to three nor specifically state "trinity" . That the power mongers also helped to split the Orthodox groups with one single word puts icing on the cake .

So , overall , I love it . I can live with the one piece of garbage in it .

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

*I* ( forget about my "faith" ) take umbrage with only one thing about the usage of that creed . And, you touched on it . If "catholic" means "universal" , there should be no insistance on using "catholic" *instead of* "universal" . There would be no footnote needed or any attempt to calm down people if universal was used . If they mean the same thing , just do it .

Other than that , I love it because it is highly vague on most points so that people can agree with it with a huge array of thinking about what each point means . I especially love the fact that the head honchos put their heads together to push the trinity idea and failed miserably because it doesn't limit the godhead to three nor specifically state "trinity" . That the power mongers also helped to split the Orthodox groups with one single word puts icing on the cake .

So , overall , I love it . I can live with the one piece of garbage in it .

Just a note, the word "catholic" was in the Creed before the Orthodox and Catholic churches as we know them as seperate jurisdictions were in existance. As one of the causes of the split was addition/changes to the creed, the Orthodox were not going to change the verbiage after the split.

Also, being that all those that recite the Creed know the definition of the word catholic (I mean is learning two definitions for a word that difficult?), it's usually not a problem.

 

[New_Wineskin]

Just a note, the word "catholic" was in the Creed before the Orthodox and Catholic churches as we know them as seperate jurisdictions were in existance. As one of the causes of the split was addition/changes to the creed, the Orthodox were not going to change the verbiage after the split.

No , it wasn't . We are discussing "catholic" as an English word - not in the language of the original . Since it was translated and they decide to use a footnote instead of simply using the word in the footnote , it shows the hidden agenda of the insistance of using the seldom used word over the word that all would recognize .

Also, being that all those that recite the Creed know the definition of the word catholic (I mean is learning two definitions for a word that difficult?), it's usually not a problem.

You know that isn't true . If it were , you wouldn't have mentioned it meaning "universal" in the OP .