I reject the creeds

[Viribus Unitis]

"No Matter How Long The Line At The Cafeteria, There's Always A Seat"

May I brew the coffee? I'm from a tropical island

 

[Viribus Unitis]

Dear Uphill

I don't think I understand what you mean. Reading the Bible -on itself- does not save anybody, yet I don't think you are going to reject reading the Bible.

The Credos were meant to answer specific heresies, not to summarise the whole of Christian doctrine.

 

[Uphill Battle]

nice

truth.

so make sure you exclude al lthese statements from your bible y'all as they are statments of this formal creed

and here is the proof of that truth.

Good I agree so informal or not confessions of faith can be as "empty" or they cannot... Who is to judge that they are MORE empty than "informal" ones...And BTW we should get rid of all the statements of faith from the Bible that are "included" in the Nicene Creed then as they are "formal" See how silly that argument comes to be?

indeed. Because that is not the argument that is being made at all.

Please, be very careful, when you say somebody you are no longer a whatever but a something else. You don't know with the feelings you could be dealing with.

That's how I stopped being a Communist. (Long and old story)

I don't remember saying I am no longer something, and am something else.

A statement can be both formal and heart-felt.

indeed.

 

[Viribus Unitis]

I don't remember saying I am no longer something, and am something else.

Nor I that you said it.

 

[Philothei]

The New Testament and the Nicene Creed are deeply entangled with each other. The wording and the concepts in the Nicene Creed come from the New Testament—in fact, one of the most important debates at the Council of Nicea concerned whether it is proper to include a word in the Nicene Creed that does not occur in the New Testament. On the other hand, at the time that the Church issued the official canon of the New Testament, it customarily compared writings to the Nicene Creed to determine if they were orthodox. So you are correct if you say that the Nicene Creed proceeds from the New Testament, and you are correct if you say that the New Testament is certified by the Nicene Creed.
By affirming certain books as Holy Scripture, it does not follow that the Church rejected or even banned all other writings. The Church continued to use the other writings, if they were orthodox, but not with scriptural authority.
Here is a brief, comparative history of both the New Testament canon and the Nicene Creed.

And I trust this is a "non-denom" site...

http://www.kencollins.com/bible-c1.htm

accepting historical truths is easy .. It was told before here that the creed preceeded the actual Bible...well if it did or not is not the point for they appeared at the same time that is for sure though. And the Apostolic Church used them as guides and for teaching the catechumenens...

 

[Uphill Battle]

Nor I that you said it.

I apologize, I misunderstood your post then.

 

[Thekla]

Actually, he does quote actual creeds (and hymns, and scripture, etc.).
Don't make me go hunt for them
​

quoting them is by no means in and of itself a bad thing. That was never my point.

I see
-- nor does Paul call the creeds he quotes a "bad thing", but his quoting creeds does indicate their use. This is what I intend to point out, and that the early Church did indeed use creeds; the epistles are written to Churches. What Paul quotes is the creedally stated belief of the members there.
We all still can use spiritual growth; but often in spiritual growth these things (such as scripture, the creeds and anything that points to Christ) become more meaningful and precious.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Not because I think there is neccessarily inaccurate statments in any particular creed, but because I don't believe that a creed has really anything to do with whether or not you are redeemed by Christ.

thoughts?

For me, a creed is a simply a way for me to state what I believe beyond Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. I don't necessarily use it as a measuring stick of other people's Christianity, but since the creeds I confess all have biblical foundations, I do often wonder about those who refute the creeds.

 

[Philothei]

So...stating a statement in the scripture is not the same as it is stated in the Creed? How so? Oh... I just remembered you said something about not being that the argument.. sure...


Playing with your words again... As the statements of the creeds come from the Bible..

 

[Uphill Battle]

For me, a creed is a simply a way for me to state what I believe beyond Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. I don't necessarily use it as a measuring stick of other people's Christianity, but since the creeds I confess all have biblical foundations, I do often wonder about those who refute the creeds.

refute their content, or refute their use?

 

[itisdeliciouscake]

well, God does have this little attribute called 'sovereignty'. to me it's no real surprise that the apostles and the early church used creeds which were summations of the apostles teachings and that they were adequate rules of faith until the canonization of the Bible, when the apostles would no longer be around, and their writings would be preserved in the New Testament.

the creeds were used mainly for pre-canonization of the Bible, and they are as true today as they were then. they don't conflict with scripture in any way, they are merely a summation of the basic truths of the gospel.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

refute their content, or refute their use?

Their content. Probably should've made that a bit clearer.

 

[Uphill Battle]

not a problem P-wife. Just wanted to be sure. I don't like misunderstanding others posts any more than I enjoy mine being misunderstood.

 

[MrStain]

...
not a problem.

Neither.

I'm looking up my post # that addresses it. I'll edit here shortly. (Post # 84.)
...

Uphill, Thanks for answering my questions and pointing out your post #84. Let me quote it here with my comments:

I might... but I've been down that road before, and it wasn't productive.

partly, yes.

there's more than one thought about it rattling around in my hollow skull.

1) that "adherence" to a specific FORMAL creed, has zero to do with being a Christian. It has more to do with membership in whatever denomination that makes it a cornerstone of "being like us."

It is said that in the early Church it was particularly important to know who was truly Christian. The Creed was used kind of like a secret handshake. If you couldn't come to profess & believe the Creed wholeheartedly then you were not a Christian.

2) that acknowledging the creed in and of itself is of no specific benefit. For instance, you could say "I believe that lime jello tastes great." But if you don't eat the jello, it's nothing more than empty words.

The Creeds in and of itself is a great instructional tool. I have heard them compared to those "sea monsters" from the 70's that you could mail-order. You know, those little pellets you addeded water to and then they expanded into some sort of sea creature in your fish tank. Kind of like a dry sponge that expands to it's full size when made wet. The Creeds are similar in that they appear small on the surface, but they truly can expand to explain much of Salvation history.

3) that Christians shouldn't use such a litmus test, as it was called, as an appropriate method for exclusion or inclusion. Frankly, the church was never meant to be a place where "you can be here if you are doctrinally correct in everything (at least, what WE say... depending on the denom again.)

The Church was meant to shepherd the sheep toward the truth of Christ. If someone obstinately refuses to believe the Creed then they are doctrinally incorrect about the truth of Christ.

4) the Creeds in and of themselves may or may not contain completely accurate information, for instance, I agree with the statements of the Nicene creed at face value. But other than it being a compiliation of some beliefs, it has no REAL value. the scriptures that it are based on are of value, the Nicene Creed is really nothing more than writing them all down in a formal statement.

I don't understand this statement of yours. If Creeds are based on Scripture then they automatically have REAL value.

and I've already addressed the issue of some, and mostly newer christians that do not have Creedal indoctrination, are more confounded by it, than edified by it.


indeed.

If newcomers are confounded by the Creed then I can assure you that they are going to be much more confounded by reading Scripture. The Creeds can help them better understand the Gospels. It sounds like the bigger problem is sound teaching.

Finally, I want to say this is a fascinating topic. I personally never heard of the Creeds growing up (Baptist), but I've found them to be a great way to profess and teach our faith to others. In many ways, it is a lot like the "Old Roman Road to Salvation" teaching of many evangelicals.

Thanks for starting thread.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Finally, I want to say this is a fascinating topic. I personally never heard of the Creeds growing up (Baptist), but I've found them to be a great way to profess and teach our faith to others. In many ways, it is a lot like the "Old Roman Road to Salvation" teaching of many evangelicals.

Thanks for starting thread.

Then why have the Creeds caused so much Division in Christiany?
The Creeds say we look forward to the Return of Christ, how is it then some denominations view themselves in the Millenium now. Impossible!!!! I say to ye!!! ehehe

Luke 21:31 Thus also ye whenever ye may be seeing these-things becoming/ginomena <1096> (5740) ye are knowing that NIGH/egguV <1451> is the Kingdom of the God.

Revelation 22:6 And said to me: "These, the Words Faithful and True and Lord, the God of the spirits of the holy Prophets, commissions the Messenger of Him to show to the bond-servents of Him which-things is binding to be becoming/genesqai <1096> (5635) IN SWIFTNESS.

 

[MrStain]

Then why have the Creeds caused so much Division in Christiany?
The Creeds say we look forward to the Return of Christ, how is it then some denominations view themselves in the Millenium now. Impossible!!!! I say to ye!!! ehehe

Luke 21:31 Thus also ye whenever ye may be seeing these-things becoming/ginomena <1096> (5740) ye are knowing that NIGH/egguV <1451> is the Kingdom of the God.

Revelation 22:6 And said to me: "These, the Words Faithful and True and Lord, the God of the spirits of the holy Prophets, commissions the Messenger of Him to show to the bond-servents of Him which-things is binding to be becoming/genesqai <1096> (5635) IN SWIFTNESS.

Creeds don't cause division. It's like saying guns shoot people or cars run over people. People are always at the root of the problem.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Well, LLOJ, probably because there will always be men (mankind men, not gender men) who have to take everything to the extreme. There will always be those who abuse the creeds and there will always be those who think that because there are abuses that the whole thing should be done away with. Kinda like how one rotten apple can spoil a bushel.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Well, LLOJ, probably because there will always be men (mankind men, not gender men) who have to take everything to the extreme. There will always be those who abuse the creeds and there will always be those who think that because there are abuses that the whole thing should be done away with. Kinda like how one rotten apple can spoil a bushel.

Or throwing the baby out with the dirty bath water? Yeah, this is how alot of people are concerning doctrine. Some people become over zealous teaching something and creating errors. Others look at this and instead of just throwing out the errors they do away with the whole teaching. It's a sad shame...

 

[TwistTim]

Creeds and Confessions have nothing to do with one's salvation, You are saved when you repent of your sins and trust Jesus and cling to Him for mercy because of who He is. (ie, say 20 Apostle's Creeds, explain the Thirty-Nine Articles in 42 minutes, what is the significance of [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Spurgeon[/FONT] Confessions and 1 time though the Westminster Confession Q& A and you are saved)...

but Doctrinally they do have one important thing... they help us stay on track... just like technically you don't need a pastor, but then you run into heresy's like those of the Anabaptists... where everyone could Baptize anyone and doctrine was whatever the few ring leaders determined it to be.... (any wonder Zwingli didn't want them around?)

 

[Philothei]

Uphill, Thanks for answering my questions and pointing out your post #84. Let me quote it here with my comments:

It is said that in the early Church it was particularly important to know who was truly Christian. The Creed was used kind of like a secret handshake. If you couldn't come to profess & believe the Creed wholeheartedly then you were not a Christian.

Of course it was part of the Cathecumenate...

The Creeds in and of itself is a great instructional tool. I have heard them compared to those "sea monsters" from the 70's that you could mail-order. You know, those little pellets you addeded water to and then they expanded into some sort of sea creature in your fish tank. Kind of like a dry sponge that expands to it's full size when made wet. The Creeds are similar in that they appear small on the surface, but they truly can expand to explain much of Salvation history.

It is a summarized verzion of what is in the bible..

The Church was meant to shepherd the sheep toward the truth of Christ. If someone obstinately refuses to believe the Creed then they are doctrinally incorrect about the truth of Christ.

I don't understand this statement of yours. If Creeds are based on Scripture then they automatically have REAL value.

That is what I have been saying all along

If newcomers are confounded by the Creed then I can assure you that they are going to be much more confounded by reading Scripture. The Creeds can help them better understand the Gospels. It sounds like the bigger problem is sound teaching.

right

Finally, I want to say this is a fascinating topic. I personally never heard of the Creeds growing up (Baptist), but I've found them to be a great way to profess and teach our faith to others. In many ways, it is a lot like the "Old Roman Road to Salvation" teaching of many evangelicals.

Thanks for starting thread.

[/quote]

It is witnessing being a Christian a "symbol" pretty much like havign the fish or the shepard or the cross ... for identifying us as Chirstians

BTW Great post my friend