Scripture Forbids The Use Of Any Ecumenical Creed

[Albion]

From the Apostles' creed:

Apostles' Creed



That can be read and heard as agreeing that the RCC is that church.

Not by anyone who's familiar with the history and meaning of the creed or the word itself, which means "authentic" or "universal" in a non-geographic sense. And of course, we have the Old Catholic, Liberal Catholic, Anglican Catholic, Eastern Orthodox Catholic, and various other churches that I suppose someone could say it is talking about. Anyway, it's no more an affirmation of the RCC than saying you believe the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church" refers to some denomination that includes one of those words in its legal name (that's the wording from the Nicene Creed).

You can argue for the way Protestant uses the term catholic, but it is not scriptural to be using catholic as a definition of the one body of Christ that it can be misunderstood as agreeing with the RCC as being that one holy church.

Then I'd recommend you not do so. You can substitute "Christian" for "Catholic" as some churches do.

So as a confession of faith, the creed is misleading and a false witness to those that do not believe and yet hear or read that creed as saying such.

Nope. We can't go through life denying what we believe just because the least educated among us might misunderstand the ordinary use of the English language. What, for instance, that we recite in the Lord's Prayer, can't be misunderstood by the ill-informed? I'm not going to stop saying the Lord's Prayer for that reason.

 

[Tellastory]

Not by anyone who's familiar with the history and meaning of the creed or the word itself, which means "authentic" or "universal" in a non-geographic sense. And of course, we have the Old Catholic, Liberal Catholic, Anglican Catholic, Eastern Orthodox Catholic, and various other churches that I suppose someone could say it is talking about. Anyway, it's no more an affirmation of the RCC than saying you believe the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church" refers to some denomination that includes one of those words in its legal name (that's the wording from the Nicene Creed).

How is it abstaining from all apearancs of evil?

Then I'd recommend you not do so. You can substitute "Christian" for "Catholic" as some churches do.

Yes, but for how long before it reverts back to catholic?

Nope. We can't go through life denying what we believe just because the least educated among us might misunderstand the ordinary use of the English language. What, for instance, that we recite in the Lord's Prayer, can't be misunderstood by the ill-informed? I'm not going to stop saying the Lord's Prayer for that reason.

The Lord's prayer is from us to God. Creeds are from us to men as a public witness and it is out there on the internetfor those that research it to know what christian believes and the cause for the creed was to unite the churches in a summary of beliefs to prevent heresy.

The Apostles did not create that creed and yet in spite of it, churches treat it as gospel when there is nothing catholic about a church that it needs to be addressed or defined as catholic.

There is no necessity to make that a point in a creed and certainly no heresey is being prevented if taken out of a creed.

We are not required to believe in a one holy church anyway. We are required to believe in Jesus Christ: not just as our Saviour, but as our Good Shepherd as well that no creed can do a good job of.

 

[Albion]

Yes, but for how long before it reverts back to catholic?

Who can say? But there are churches such as the conservative Lutheran churches that have used the "Christian" substitute for many generations now for the very reason you are talking about.

The Lord's prayer is from us to God.

Doesn't matter--as far as your point is concerned. That is to say, there are many terms and wordings in it that can be misunderstood by SOMEONE or other, so we should give it up, according to your logic. I won't do that.

The Apostles did not create that creed and yet in spite of it, churches treat it as gospel when there is nothing catholic about a church that it needs to be addressed or defined as catholic.

The Apostles' Creed is much older than the RCC.

We are not required to believe in a one holy church anyway. We are required to believe in Jesus Christ: not just as our Saviour, but as our Good Shepherd as well that no creed can do a good job of.

Jesus did found a church, you know, and said so.

 

[Yarddog]

There are many Catholics railing on me saying that I do not know what they believe because some of them do believe that they are saved.

And yet the catechism speaks on this wise about the sin of presumption.

Pg. 507, #2092

2092 There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God's almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit).

What part do you have a problem with? It says that man cannot save himself and some hope for forgiveness but do not change.

Now to this part of the response towards me:

In redeeming sinners for the first time that come to and believe in Him. It is not a continual sacrifice made ever present for saved believers to keep on taking as an unbloody sacrificial offer of Jesus as an ongoing work of their own redemption. That is like saying they are not saved yet because you have not been fully redeemed yet.

So you don't believe that the One sacrifice of Jesus Christ is still at work today? That must be bad news for Christians today.

The Catechism which you cite was about the Eucharist, which if you actually read the article which you gave a link to, about the Eucharist, would understand things a lot better than you do. The Eucharist is more than the sacrifice, it is a memorial and a meal which nourishes God's children. We are also called to examine ourselves before approaching the body and blood so that we will not sin against these.

Intercessions is what He is making. Not continual sacrifice of the one at Calvary.

It is the One sacrifice which is continually working for the benefit of man.

If any body wants to know how a saved believer is cleansed from sins committed after salvation, please know it is not by partaking in the Mass.

1 John 1:4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. 5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

I don't think that anyone is saying that we are cleansed just by going to Mass. We are, though, called to come together to worship and partake of the Eucharist. We are to confess our sins.

We are called to grow as Christians and to walk in the Spirit of God. Paul warns early Christians in Hebrews 2:
1. Therefore, we must attend all the more to what we have heard, so that we may not be carried away.
2. For if the word announced through angels proved firm, and every transgression and disobedience received its just recompense,
3. how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation? Announced originally through the Lord, it was confirmed for us by those who had heard...
Hebrews 5:
11. About this we have much to say, and it is difficult to explain, for you have become sluggish in hearing.
12. Although you should be teachers by this time, you need to have someone teach you again the basic elements of the utterances of God. You need milk, [and] not solid food.
13. Everyone who lives on milk lacks experience of the word of righteousness, for he is a child.
14. But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties are trained by practice to discern good and evil...
Hebrews 6:
1. Therefore, let us leave behind the basic teaching about Christ and advance to maturity, without laying the foundation all over again: repentance from dead works and faith in God

Growth in Christ is what we are called to do. Many Christians of all denominations go to Church and fellowship but do not grow in Christ. Most do but for Catholics, the Mass helps those who search, grow and mature.

We are spiritually nourished through the Eucharist. You may not comprehend this but many Christians other than Catholics also believe this.

A saved believer can ask for forgiveness of sins by confessing them to Him.

No one is saying that they cannot but being cleansed is more than being forgiven for a sin, it is growing in Faith so that the desire to sin is removed.

A saved believer can rest in that knowledge that he or she is cleansed from all unrighteousness... all of them.

All Christians are not the same in their growth as children of God and the scripture which I provided shows that. To say that a saved or "baptized Christian" will reach salvation without doing what God calls them to do goes against scripture.

A saved believer can rest in the knowledge that as he or she is walking in the light and not in darkness, the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sins as we maintain that fellowship with the Father & the Son by walking in the light by His grace and by His help.

Can, doesn't mean that they will.

And yet if a saved believer sins, they can confess it and know they are forgiven as they lean on Him to repent of it to continue walking in the light.

Yes.

Anyone can read the article to form their own opinions on how Catholics believe differently and why the catechism should be the final word on any given subject of catholicism.

Why some Catholics look differently at the Eucharist is a very small part of the article but if you continue to read you may get what the Church teaches about it.

Sometimes Catholics say things without realizing they are saying that which I was speaking of earlier... a continual sacrifice is what is going on when a Catholic's work of redemption is being carried on in the Mass.

The work of the One sacrifice is continuing.

That is why one Catholic man I know of HAVE to go to the Mass, failing to see it as a con to enslave the Catholics in serving a church and not Him to rest in Him as saved so that others may know the Good News to man.

There you go attacking us without knowing what you are talking about. There is no "con" in the Mass. The Mass is worship and if you don't believe that we are called to worship God then you are not a very good Christian.

Again, readers can make up their own minds in what they read of those scriptural references given in the 3rd post of this thread just as scripture was given about treating Mary or any of the departed patron saint as a god as if they can answer prayers the way the Son of God can.

They can make up their minds as they read your sin of giving false witness about the Catholic Church. No Saint is treated as a god by the Church.

I agree with only that part of the quote. Learn of Him through His actual words and not man made ones making up catholicism.

You mean the man made traditions which you espouse.

They may use scripture, but not rightly applied as such teachings that are derived from it can be reproven by scripture elsewhere.

The problem is that you don't know scripture well enough. The Catholic Church does not reject any scripture and one must examine them all. Too many newer Churches only use one verse to devise their doctrines while not knowing others which negates what they believe. You have given nothing which shows any doctrine of the Catholic Church as being in error.

And since scripture cannot go against scripture, then they are not rightly applying that reference that the RCC is using which is why those rooted in the word would never convert to catholicism and why those in catholicism are leaving because they are rooted in the word to know that catholicism is not of Him at all.

I am just happy that God's Holy Spirit has revealed the truth to my spirit. Hopefully, your spirit will listen to God's Spirit and you will learn the truth.

 

[Jack Terrence]

2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Oh boy, not another one.

First Corinthians 6 is about sexual sin and not about creeds at all.

 

[Tellastory]

Who can say? But there are churches such as the conservative Lutheran churches that have used the "Christian" substitute for many generations now for the very reason you are talking about.

Explain how Lutheran leaders in the British Isles are now saying it was a mistake to leave the RCC?

A little leaven leavens into a whole lump.

Doesn't matter--as far as your point is concerned. That is to say, there are many terms and wordings in it that can be misunderstood by SOMEONE or other, so we should give it up, according to your logic. I won't do that.

Jesus did say that His disciples will be pruned so that they may bear more fruit. With all of that misrepresentation by use of thecreed, I'd say it is time, but I am asking you and churches to take that matter to Jesus as He is your Good Shepherd, and not me.

The Apostles' Creed is much older than the RCC.

Citing something that is not a given to even a believer is rationalizing.

Jesus did found a church, you know, and said so.

To be clearer still, hopefully as I do rely on Him to cause the increase, Jesus founded the church, but He did not ask believers to believe in a church as if there is a necessity to emphasize that in a creed to keep out heresy, and yet by that creed, it strengthens the RCC in its wickedness, now doesn't it?

What does Christ's love in us compels us to do in that regard? And we are talking about millions of Catholics too. Where is our witness to them?

 

[Tellastory]

Originally Posted by Tellastory

There are many Catholics railing on me saying that I do not know what they believe because some of them do believe that they are saved.

And yet the catechism speaks on this wise about the sin of presumption.

Pg. 507, #2092
​

2092 There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God's almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit).

What part do you have a problem with? It says that man cannot save himself and some hope for forgiveness but do not change.

Let me emphasize the part you are overlooking.

2092 There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God's almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit).

I had quoted that from the catechism because the RCC teaches that it is a sin of presumption for any believer to believe they are saved by faith alone.

Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Titus 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, 5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; 7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. 8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

Either recognize that we are saved in order for us to be calling Jesus as our Saviour or we are working for our salvation which means we cannot say Jesus is our Saviour yet if we are working to save ourselves still. That would mean we are the saviours if we are the ones saving ourselves but we are not able to which is why we need God to be our Saviour.

Either we run that race as saved believers or we are labouring in unbelief.

Titus 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 14 Not giving heed to ..............commandments of men, that turn from the truth. 15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. 16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

Hebrews 4:1Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. 2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. 3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world....9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. 10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. 11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

 

[Albion]

Explain how Lutheran leaders in the British Isles are now saying it was a mistake to leave the RCC?

I didn't say that every Lutheran in the world agreed with those churches I mentioned.

To be clearer still, hopefully as I do rely on Him to cause the increase, Jesus founded the church, but He did not ask believers to believe in a church

What does Christ's love in us compels us to do in that regard? And we are talking about millions of Catholics too. Where is our witness to them?

I don't see what that has to do with the claim that Scripture forbids us from using Creeds.

 

[Lilly Owl]

Are you, in the OP, asking what denomination would Jesus approve?

 

[Imagican]

I offer agreement with the premiss of this thread.

What is the point in MAKING up what it is that we BELIEVE if we have been INSTEAD, commanded to follow AS instructed?

And if that instruction is relatively clear, it is ESPECIALLY contrary to MAKE UP what it is that we believe that is DIFFERENT than what we have been offered BY God.

The Bible tells us that there will come a time when those OPPOSED to the truth will forbid followers to wed. We have a PERFECT example of this in the Catholic Church insisting that Priest CANNOT wed.

We are told there will come a time that those professing to be followers will insist upon following FABLES rather than the wholesome words of God.

We are told that there will come a time when MANY will claim that 'Christ is here', or 'Christ is there'. And it is perfectly clear that there are MANY 'different Christ's' being worshiped today.

And what is MOST important is that we were told NOT to accept ANY doctrine that was NOT delivered BY the apostles or Christ Himself.

ALL the 'creeds' that exist are statements of faith that were NEVER offered BY the apostles. Each contains admissions that those that follow, follow ideas and doctrine CREATED by MEN. Not Christ or His apostles.

The simple term "Church Fathers" that contain names of people that were NOT 'apostles' plainly points to MEN making up their OWN ideas of what to follow instead of simply following as defined in God's Word. Trying to place things in THEIR OWN words rather than simply defining God's Words.

Let's look at something REAL simple to discern:

"Trinity". NEVER is 'trinity' defined within God's Word. The word 'trinity' itself does not EXIST in God's Word. Yet there are those that are MORE faithful to this DOCTRINE than they are God or His Son. People that would condemn others for NOT accepting it that don't even FOLLOW God or Christ. They simply have accepted this 'creed' and defend it when MOST don't even understand it to begin with.

And it is THIS sort of commitment to MEN and their IDEAS that has led MANY away from God and His Son and allowed them to follow "CHURCHES" designed by men instead of God and His Son in TRUTH.

Look folks, a 'church' that doesn't KNOW the truth can't TEACH it. And 'churches' that teach that one's faith is to be contained WITHIN that 'church', (organization), instead of God through His Son doesn't have a CLUE as to the TRUTH. For the TRUTH is we are to be FAITHFUL to God through His Son and NOT to men and their institutions and their imaginings designed to imitate those 'things of this world'.

Just pay attention to the FACT that MOST 'creeds' attempt to define God or His Son or the relationship that we are to desire in terms of 'things of this world' INSTEAD of simply USING the words that we have been offered in the Bible.

"Trinity" is just ONE of these 'words'.

It is a KNOWN FACT that 'trinities' existed in OTHER religions, (religions of THIS WORLD), long BEFORE Christ was introduced to mankind.

So how is one going to insist that they follow the TRUTH as offered by God through prophet, Son and apostles when in FACT, what the TRULY follow is an IDEA introduced into 'Christianity' hundreds of years AFTER Christ REVEALED to us WHO He truly IS? And an idea that is utterly contrary to the words of Christ Himself.

For Christ plainly offered that the Father is GREATER than the Son. Christ PLAINLY offered that the words that He offered were NOT HIS OWN, but GIVEN to Him BY His Father: GOD.

So if the words were NOT HIS OWN, then Christ was NOT the Word of God. The Word of God was nothing OTHER THAN WORDS, (concepts, ideas, communication, representation, etc....), that WAS God.

For if Christ WERE 'The Word', then the words that He offered WOULD HAVE BEEN HIS OWN. If Christ were ONE Of the three PERSONS that make up God, then the words that He offered WOULD HAVE BEEN HIS OWN. Yet He offers OPENLY and without controversy that the words that He offered were NOT HIS OWN. The BELONGED to the Father: GOD.

But there are those that are MORE faithful to the 'creeds' leading up to 'trinity' and 'trinity' ITSELF than the words of Christ. For IF you ACCEPT the words of Christ, there is NO "TRINITY" possible.

Let us examine these words: "Ecumenical creed" themselves. NEITHER exist within the Word of God. They are MAN-MADE terms. What NEED do MEN have to MAKE UP their OWN words to define their beliefs instead of being able to define them according to words OFFERED BY GOD through prophet, Son or apostles?

This in and of ITSELF ought to SCREAM: 'this is OF the WORLD and NOT of God'.

Let's look at this scenario:

Europeans come to America, THINKING that they are traveling a NEW route to Asia. They land in a foreign land and immediately name the natives INDIANS thinking that they have landed in a DIFFERENT PLACE. Instead of allowing those who they came in contact with define themselves, the automatically assumed that THEY were in a position to MORE RIGHTLY define the natives than the natives themselves. And they were WRONG. And LOOK at the FACT that the SAME NAME is used to define those natives till this very day.

It's NO different with MEN intent on defining something that they don't understand as far as God and His Son are concerned. For if they HAD truly UNDERSTOOD the words offered by God, His Son and the apostles would have been ENOUGH.

But we SEE in almost EVERY 'religion', men intent upon MAKING UP what it is that they desire to FOLLOW. Adding a bit here and a tad there until eventually their 'religion' evolves into something of their own design.

And isn't this exactly what 'creed' IS? Rules of MEN made up by men and instituted BY MEN? For THE 'creed' of EVERY Christian should be The Word, The Bible, NOT what they have made up themselves.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Tellastory]

I didn't say that every Lutheran in the world agreed with those churches I mentioned.

Just citing a problem since Jesus did warn us about the small leaven of the Pharisees.

There is no pointed teaching to emphasize to believe in the church any more than to believe that the sky is blue.

I don't see what that has to do with the claim that Scripture forbids us from using Creeds.

We are called to be seperate and chosen out of the world and the ecumenical creeds are muddying the light of the witness that Jesus wants us to have, especially as a witness of our seperation against our brothers & sisters in the dead works of catholicism in the hopes that they may repent... and yet the creeds are implying an agreement with the RCC from their point of view.

No believer can say it doesn't matter what the Catholic's point of view is, but yet we are called to be seperate in the hopes that they may repent and the creeds are not helping with that at all.

 

[Tellastory]

Are you, in the OP, asking what denomination would Jesus approve?

No. I am saying that a creed shared by all denomenations as the RCC is using the creeds to strengthen themselves as being that one holy catholic church, that Protestant churches should drop the creeds as they should be no visible agreement with the RCC until they repent of the dead works of catholicism.

They should drop the creeds as a witness not only to Catholics but to the world so that the faith of the believing christian church can shine brighter in the hopes that it will lead some believers in the Catholic church o to repent and that the world will know why Jesus Christ is really the Good News to man as standing apart from the works of catholicism.

 

[Roger Baker]

To me, it seems that a variety of understandings doesn't mean that most of us are wrong; rather, it means the Holy Spirit can use a variety of understandings for us to enjoy the faith and grow. Yes, there are hard parts, but if the discussion draws you closer to reading the Word and listening for the Holy Spirit, what complaint have we?

I'm a Methodist. We're pretty liberal. We expect no one to earn their way to heaven.

 

[Jack Terrence]

I offer agreement with the premiss of this thread.

What is the point in MAKING up what it is that we BELIEVE if we have been INSTEAD, commanded to follow AS instructed?

And if that instruction is relatively clear, it is ESPECIALLY contrary to MAKE UP what it is that we believe that is DIFFERENT than what we have been offered BY God.

The Bible tells us that there will come a time when those OPPOSED to the truth will forbid followers to wed. We have a PERFECT example of this in the Catholic Church insisting that Priest CANNOT wed.

We are told there will come a time that those professing to be followers will insist upon following FABLES rather than the wholesome words of God.

We are told that there will come a time when MANY will claim that 'Christ is here', or 'Christ is there'. And it is perfectly clear that there are MANY 'different Christ's' being worshiped today.

And what is MOST important is that we were told NOT to accept ANY doctrine that was NOT delivered BY the apostles or Christ Himself.

ALL the 'creeds' that exist are statements of faith that were NEVER offered BY the apostles. Each contains admissions that those that follow, follow ideas and doctrine CREATED by MEN. Not Christ or His apostles.

The simple term "Church Fathers" that contain names of people that were NOT 'apostles' plainly points to MEN making up their OWN ideas of what to follow instead of simply following as defined in God's Word. Trying to place things in THEIR OWN words rather than simply defining God's Words.

Let's look at something REAL simple to discern:

"Trinity". NEVER is 'trinity' defined within God's Word. The word 'trinity' itself does not EXIST in God's Word. Yet there are those that are MORE faithful to this DOCTRINE than they are God or His Son. People that would condemn others for NOT accepting it that don't even FOLLOW God or Christ. They simply have accepted this 'creed' and defend it when MOST don't even understand it to begin with.

And it is THIS sort of commitment to MEN and their IDEAS that has led MANY away from God and His Son and allowed them to follow "CHURCHES" designed by men instead of God and His Son in TRUTH.

Look folks, a 'church' that doesn't KNOW the truth can't TEACH it. And 'churches' that teach that one's faith is to be contained WITHIN that 'church', (organization), instead of God through His Son doesn't have a CLUE as to the TRUTH. For the TRUTH is we are to be FAITHFUL to God through His Son and NOT to men and their institutions and their imaginings designed to imitate those 'things of this world'.

Just pay attention to the FACT that MOST 'creeds' attempt to define God or His Son or the relationship that we are to desire in terms of 'things of this world' INSTEAD of simply USING the words that we have been offered in the Bible.

"Trinity" is just ONE of these 'words'.

It is a KNOWN FACT that 'trinities' existed in OTHER religions, (religions of THIS WORLD), long BEFORE Christ was introduced to mankind.

So how is one going to insist that they follow the TRUTH as offered by God through prophet, Son and apostles when in FACT, what the TRULY follow is an IDEA introduced into 'Christianity' hundreds of years AFTER Christ REVEALED to us WHO He truly IS? And an idea that is utterly contrary to the words of Christ Himself.

For Christ plainly offered that the Father is GREATER than the Son. Christ PLAINLY offered that the words that He offered were NOT HIS OWN, but GIVEN to Him BY His Father: GOD.

So if the words were NOT HIS OWN, then Christ was NOT the Word of God. The Word of God was nothing OTHER THAN WORDS, (concepts, ideas, communication, representation, etc....), that WAS God.

For if Christ WERE 'The Word', then the words that He offered WOULD HAVE BEEN HIS OWN. If Christ were ONE Of the three PERSONS that make up God, then the words that He offered WOULD HAVE BEEN HIS OWN. Yet He offers OPENLY and without controversy that the words that He offered were NOT HIS OWN. The BELONGED to the Father: GOD.

But there are those that are MORE faithful to the 'creeds' leading up to 'trinity' and 'trinity' ITSELF than the words of Christ. For IF you ACCEPT the words of Christ, there is NO "TRINITY" possible.

Let us examine these words: "Ecumenical creed" themselves. NEITHER exist within the Word of God. They are MAN-MADE terms. What NEED do MEN have to MAKE UP their OWN words to define their beliefs instead of being able to define them according to words OFFERED BY GOD through prophet, Son or apostles?

This in and of ITSELF ought to SCREAM: 'this is OF the WORLD and NOT of God'.

Let's look at this scenario:

Europeans come to America, THINKING that they are traveling a NEW route to Asia. They land in a foreign land and immediately name the natives INDIANS thinking that they have landed in a DIFFERENT PLACE. Instead of allowing those who they came in contact with define themselves, the automatically assumed that THEY were in a position to MORE RIGHTLY define the natives than the natives themselves. And they were WRONG. And LOOK at the FACT that the SAME NAME is used to define those natives till this very day.

It's NO different with MEN intent on defining something that they don't understand as far as God and His Son are concerned. For if they HAD truly UNDERSTOOD the words offered by God, His Son and the apostles would have been ENOUGH.

But we SEE in almost EVERY 'religion', men intent upon MAKING UP what it is that they desire to FOLLOW. Adding a bit here and a tad there until eventually their 'religion' evolves into something of their own design.

And isn't this exactly what 'creed' IS? Rules of MEN made up by men and instituted BY MEN? For THE 'creed' of EVERY Christian should be The Word, The Bible, NOT what they have made up themselves.

Blessings,

MEC

You could have said it in fewer words. Why do you need to write a thesis? Have you heard the saying, "There is virtue in brevity?"

Furthermore, Paul said that the Church is the "pillar and ground of truth." Yet you won't listen to it.

He said that the mystery of godliness is "WITHOUT CONTROVERSY," namely, that, "He (God) was manifest in the flesh." Yet you are here everyday creating controversy and trying to negate the teachings of the Church "the pillar and ground of truth."

Keep your next reply short please.

 

[Albion]

There is no pointed teaching to emphasize to believe in the church any more than to believe that the sky is blue.

I just thought it needed to be said that Jesus did found a church; he didn't just teach principles. So if he founded a church, it follows that we ought to give it some place in our religion--not infallibility and not some one and only true denomination, of course, but the fellowship of believers where the Lord's Supper is served and converts baptised, etc.

We are called to be seperate and chosen out of the world and the ecumenical creeds are muddying the light of the witness that Jesus wants us to have

I'm afraid that I can't agree that you've made that point. The Creeds are a small part of anyone's faith, and they certainly do not represent "the world" as opposed to the things of the family of called out believers.

No believer can say it doesn't matter what the Catholic's point of view is, but yet we are called to be seperate in the hopes that they may repent and the creeds are not helping with that at all.

Since the creeds are not the private possession of the Roman Catholic Church (even though they would like everyone to think that they are), I can't agree. Millions of non-Catholics believe every word in both the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds. What you're suggesting strikes me as similar to saying we shouldn't celebrate Christmas or have crosses in our churches...because the Catholic Church did it first. No, I'm not going to deny most of our faith just because some other church agrees with us on some of it.

 

[shturt678]

I believe creeds are summaries of belief, i.e., acting as a yardstick of correct belief. Now "Ecumenical Creeds" were aimed at greater Christian unity or cooperation, as on this forum. We have "unity" yet diversity regrading how God produces "faith," "faith" defined, "repentance," and etc. and etc., yet united for the most part. I also believe that God forbids placing ourselves above IITim.3:16; lack of a fear of God Rom.3:18; and even unknowingly worshipping the image of the wild beast; and viewing Bible translations as inspired to keep the church business going. My end point our own Protestant house has become corrupt than the poor RCs., unknowingly of course, IIThess.2:11, 12 yesterday. Sorry, got on a roll.

 

[Yarddog]

Let me emphasize the part you are overlooking.

2092 There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God's almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit).

I had quoted that from the catechism because the RCC teaches that it is a sin of presumption for any believer to believe they are saved by faith alone.

I'm not sure what your belief in the Lutheran doctrine on faith alone but it does not exclude repentance. CC 2092 means that a person presumes that they do not have to repent of their sins and does not have anything to do with "faith alone".

Hopefully you can start to understand that you do not understand what the Catholic Church teaches.

Either recognize that we are saved in order for us to be calling Jesus as our Saviour or we are working for our salvation which means we cannot say Jesus is our Saviour yet if we are working to save ourselves still.

Paul says that we are working out our salvation and the Catholic Church cannot contradict that. We are justified through faith in Christ. But faith is never alone. There is a reason that we have the ability to have faith. God's grace.

The only place in scripture where the words "faith and alone" appear is in same sentence the Book of James and he explicitly states that: "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."

We would contradict scripture if we said faith alone. Paul says faith but never faith alone.

That would mean we are the saviours if we are the ones saving ourselves but we are not able to which is why we need God to be our Saviour.

How come you read catechisms which you think prove your point but reject the ones where it plainly states that we cannot save ourselves?

1987 The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" and through Baptism:

1989 The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus' proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."38 Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.


990 Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God's merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals.


1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life Either we run that race as saved believers or we are labouring in unbelief.

 

[Tellastory]

I just thought it needed to be said that Jesus did found a church; he didn't just teach principles. So if he founded a church, it follows that we ought to give it some place in our religion--not infallibility and not some one and only true denomination, of course, but the fellowship of believers where the Lord's Supper is served and converts baptised, etc.

The baptism with the Holy Ghost that Jesus Christ gives for coming to & believing in Him is the only baptism that matters in being a member of His church, the body of believers.

I'm afraid that I can't agree that you've made that point. The Creeds are a small part of anyone's faith, and they certainly do not represent "the world" as opposed to the things of the family of called out believers.

Since the creeds are not the private possession of the Roman Catholic Church (even though they would like everyone to think that they are), I can't agree. Millions of non-Catholics believe every word in both the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds. What you're suggesting strikes me as similar to saying we shouldn't celebrate Christmas or have crosses in our churches...because the Catholic Church did it first. No, I'm not going to deny most of our faith just because some other church agrees with us on some of it.

Nicene creed introduces error since Jesus is the bread of life that gives life to the world ( John 6:33-35 ) whereas the Spirit is life ( Romans 8:10 )wherein when Jesus baptizes us with the Holy Ghost we are receiving eternal life. Most but not all modern Bibles have erred by translating spirit in 2 Corinthians 3:6 & John 6:63 to mean the Holy Spirit as giving life.

Scripture & the indwelling Holy Spirit would give the glory of the Giver of Life to the Son; John 5:39-40 & John 16:13-14

Plus another error is given when the Holy Spirit is to be worshipped with the Father & the Son; again not supported by actual scripture.

We can only honour God the Father by honouring the Son ( John 5:23 ) Those led by the Spirit will be seeking to testify of the Son ( John 15:26-27 ) by not speaking of the Holy Spirit ( John 16:13 ) in order to glorify the Son ( John 16:14 ) The mind of Christ we are to have is to glorify the Son which is the "obedience" Paul was emphasizing in Philippians 2:5-13.

The only way to have access to God the Father in worship is by coming to the Son in worship. John 14:6 There really is no other way.

Those that broaden the way to God the Father in worship, fellowship & prayer are ignoring His warnings: Matthew 7:13-14 & Luke 13:24 & Matthew 7:24-27 & John 10:1,7-9

So the Nicene creed of 381 is apostate: the one in 325 isn't, but hardly the one used in all the denomenational churches; however, there can be no agreement that can be shared by all denomenational churches and thus the call to abstain from all appearances of evil.

There is no need to testify of a catholic universal church when we have been called to be witnesses of the Son in seeking His glory. By dropping the creeds, you drop the false image of the RCC in the eyes of the world as well as to our errant brothers & sister in catholicism to admonish them to repentance.

 

[Albion]

The baptism with the Holy Ghost that Jesus Christ gives for coming to & believing in Him is the only baptism that matters in being a member of His church, the body of believers.

Yeh, I've heard that theory before, but I don't want to wander off the subject here. Jesus did found a church, and we know that because he said so. Now the question becomes one of identifying it.

Nicene creed introduces error since Jesus is the bread of life that gives life to the world ( John 6:33-35 ) whereas the Spirit is life ( Romans 8:10 )wherein when Jesus baptizes us with the Holy Ghost we are receiving eternal life. Most but not all modern Bibles have erred by translating spirit in 2 Corinthians 3:6 & John 6:63 to mean the Holy Spirit as giving life.

Where does the Creed even discuss that matter, let along "introduce error?"

Plus another error is given when the Holy Spirit is to be worshipped with the Father & the Son; again not supported by actual scripture.

You think, I assume, that the Holy Spirit is only the Father's force or something like that?

So the Nicene creed of 381 is apostate: the one in 325 isn't, but hardly the one used in all the denomenational churches; however, there can be no agreement that can be shared by all denomenational churches and thus the call to abstain from all appearances of evil.

Of course, there are always going to be splinters and cults that are way out in religious no man's land with their ideas. But for purposes of this discussion, they would have to be set aside or else a single person with his own theory would cause us to say "no unity is possible." The question really doesn't contemplate some technical exception of that sort, nor should it.

 

[RevelationTestament]

The baptism with the Holy Ghost that Jesus Christ gives for coming to & believing in Him is the only baptism that matters in being a member of His church, the body of believers.



Nicene creed introduces error since Jesus is the bread of life that gives life to the world ( John 6:33-35 ) whereas the Spirit is life ( Romans 8:10 )wherein when Jesus baptizes us with the Holy Ghost we are receiving eternal life. Most but not all modern Bibles have erred by translating spirit in 2 Corinthians 3:6 & John 6:63 to mean the Holy Spirit as giving life.

So the Nicene creed of 381 is apostate: the one in 325 isn't, but hardly the one used in all the denomenational churches; however, there can be no agreement that can be shared by all denomenational churches and thus the call to abstain from all appearances of evil..

The first Nicene Creed erred as well in redefining the begottenness of the Son, and proclaiming Him to be begotten before all ages or worlds. He was begotten in time by the oath of the Father according to scripture. It also introduced the concept of one substance, but did not proclaim the holy Spirit to be a part of of this substance - all made up anyway.