LDS Why are Christian creeds considered abominations?

[Padres1969]

Do you view them as God breathed, on par with the Bible?

On par with the bible, no (though just for reference I don't consider the bible "God breathed" either, rather divinely inspired). But I do believe the creed, particularly the Nicene and Apostles to be inspired by the Spirit as well and based on the bible itself.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Written by a bunch of men

The thing about writing is that everything that's ever been written in the entire history of everything has been written by human beings. Short of discovering intelligent extraterrestrial life out there in the cosmos and that they, too, developed writing as a form of communication, that's not going to change.

So that something is written by human beings is hardly much of a criticism, everything that's ever been written has been written by our species.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jane_Doe]

On par with the bible, no (though just for reference I don't consider the bible "God breathed" either, rather divinely inspired). But I do believe the creed, particularly the Nicene and Apostles to be inspired by the Spirit as well and based on the bible itself.

Your non-belief in the Bible being God-breathed is atypical for a Christian. Odd.

If you believe them to be on par with the Bible, have you stapled them into your Bible?

 

[Jane_Doe]

The thing about writing is that everything that's ever been written in the entire history of everything has been written by human beings. Short of discovering intelligent extraterrestrial life out there in the cosmos and that they, too, developed writing as a form of communication, that's not going to change.

So that something is written by human beings is hardly much of a criticism, everything that's ever been written has been written by our species.

-CryptoLutheran

So, do you also believe the Bible to not be God-breathed?

(Note: obviously there was a human scribe attached to things. But what I'm asking is, do you believe God was the author with a human scribe, or a human author).

 

[ViaCrucis]

Your non-belief in the Bible being God-breathed is atypical for a Christian. Odd.

I might be mistaken, but I think the point was that he did not view them as divinely dictated in the way that some Fundamentalists would argue, but that rather Scripture is divinely inspired as has been the historic belief of the Christian Church.

Though I would point out that "God-breathed" is simply a fairly literal translation of the word theopneustos, an equally literal translation would be "divinely inspired", the word "inspire" coming from the Latin, notably the word spirare, to breathe. Related to the noun spiritus, "breath" or "wind", from which we get "spirit".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

(Note: obviously there was a human scribe attached to things. But what I'm asking is, do you believe God was the author with a human scribe, or a human author).

That's the mistaken concept of inspiration I mentioned. That the human author was basically just a scribe. It's very clear that the Scriptures aren't this, but are the actual writings of real people who put their actual thoughts and attempts to say things to paper or in some cases had others do the writing themselves (St. Paul, for example, used a scribe to pen his letters because he wasn't very good at writing Greek). Paul wasn't God's scribe, Paul was writing to real people concerning real events using his own actual thoughts. That his letters, later, came to be regarded as divinely inspired doesn't mean Paul wasn't the one actually doing the writing (or, more technically, the speaking, with a scribe doing the actual labor of putting pen to paper), instead it means that the Church came to believe and recognize that God continued to use these writings to speak to the Church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Padres1969]

Your non-belief in the Bible being God-breathed is atypical for a Christian. Odd.

If you believe them to be on par with the Bible, have you stapled them into your Bible?

I don't believe them to be on par with the bible, please re-read what I posted above. I said they were not on par. But that they were inspired by the spirit and based on the bible. Also my belief in the bible not being God-breathed but rather divinely inspired writings of men is not as unusual as you seem to believe.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So, do you also believe the Bible to not be God-breathed?

(Note: obviously there was a human scribe attached to things. But what I'm asking is, do you believe God was the author with a human scribe, or a human author).

Scripture is divinely inspired. St. Augustine wrote that all of Scripture contains but one Utterance, that Utterance being Christ. It is Christ who is God's Word, as He is the very Logos, uncreated, who became human. Jesus is God's Revelation to the world, the Bible is the witness to God's Revelation in Christ. Luther referred to the Bible metaphorically as the manger that held the Christ Child. Scripture is not a magical tome fallen from the sky, but the holy writings collected and venerated in the Church for the Church's use so that it might continue to faithful hear and proclaim God's word, that it might continue to confess God's word. That the Gospel would continue to be faithfully preached, the Sacraments faithfully administered, that Christ be faithfully confessed and believed, etc. The Bible is God's word because through this God's Word continues to come to the Faithful, that Word is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, crucified and risen from the dead.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ironhold]

1 John 5:7,

...and the long string of mainline Christians having to resort to the Johanine Comma continues...

Seriously: this is one of the most suspect and most controversial passages in the Bible, yet it's #1 whenever people need to defend the three-in-one concept.

 

[Padres1969]

...and the long string of mainline Christians having to resort to the Johanine Comma continues...

Seriously: this is one of the most suspect and most controversial passages in the Bible, yet it's #1 whenever people need to defend the three-in-one concept.

And yet it wasn't the first or only passage I referenced...

 

[ToBeLoved]

This, however, goes back to the question I asked earlier:

"If the Creeds are not being elevated to the level of Biblical canon, then why is so much wrath reserved for those who reject them even if they hold to everything else Christianity holds to?"

What is this wrath that you speak of? Wrath is a pretty strong word

 

[BigDaddy4]

There is nothing wrong with this posted creed. Other creeds are problematic, for reasons I posted in #4.

So not "all their creeds are an abomination"??

 

[BigDaddy4]

This, however, goes back to the question I asked earlier:

"If the Creeds are not being elevated to the level of Biblical canon, then why is so much wrath reserved for those who reject them even if they hold to everything else Christianity holds to?"

Is this more of your made up stuff? You're a little short of specifics here. Who are the "those"? It certainly can't include the lds, because the lds definitely do not "hold to everything else Christianity holds to".

I suspect, once again, that you are being overly dramatic in your statements, including your first post in this thread. You certainly love the bold and italics features.

 

[Ironhold]

What is this wrath that you speak of? Wrath is a pretty strong word

It's been made clear to us in the past that the minute we say we don't treat the creeds like scripture we're heretics who deserve to die.

Yes folks, I've had far too many "Good Christians" presume that their "saved" status gives them the right to treat me like garbage.

 

[Padres1969]

It's been made clear to us in the past that the minute we say we don't treat the creeds like scripture we're heretics who deserve to die.

Yes folks, I've had far too many "Good Christians" presume that their "saved" status gives them the right to treat me like garbage.

Who has been telling you that? Many Christian faith groups don't expressly hold to the creeds but are generally considered part of the Christian family of faiths by creedal Christians. Most obvious example being groups like the Southern Baptists who don't express the creeds but are none the less Christian. To be fair they may not express the Creeds, but their beliefs express most of (or all of) both of the two major creeds (depending on translation).

Now if you're referring to Christians who don't hold Mormons to be Christian (such as this site's view on that issue) it's not necessarily because you don't profess the creeds themselves, but rather than Mormons don't believe in the basic beliefs behind the creeds (and as mentioned those creeds contain the oft considered general basics of Christian belief). So to not believe them is to not believe in Christianity would be the argument.

 

[Ironhold]

Who has been telling you that? Many Christian faith groups don't expressly hold to the creeds but are generally considered part of the Christian family of faiths by creedal Christians. Most obvious example being groups like the Southern Baptists who don't express the creeds but are none the less Christian. To be fair they may not express the Creeds, but their beliefs express most of (or all of) both of the two major creeds (depending on translation).

Now if you're referring to Christians who don't hold Mormons to be Christian (such as this site's view on that issue) it's not necessarily because you don't profess the creeds themselves, but rather than Mormons don't believe in the basic beliefs behind the creeds (and as mentioned those creeds contain the oft considered general basics of Christian belief). So to not believe them is to not believe in Christianity would be the argument.

Either way, we have "Good Christians" who say that we all need to be put to the sword simply for being LDS.

...even after we point out how much we have in common theologically. If anything, pointing out the points of commonality just makes people even more upset.

 

[drstevej]

Either way, we have "Good Christians" who say that we all need to be put to the sword simply for being LDS.

Document or retract.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Now if you're referring to Christians who don't hold Mormons to be Christian (such as this site's view on that issue) it's not necessarily because you don't profess the creeds themselves, but rather than Mormons don't believe in the basic beliefs behind the creeds (and as mentioned those creeds contain the oft considered general basics of Christian belief). So to not believe them is to not believe in Christianity would be the argument.

Point of clarification: what do you see as the difference between not professing the creeds, and not believing the creeds beliefs?

 

[BigDaddy4]

More overdramatics... When do these thread stop becoming your personal pity party?

NO ONE on any recent threads in this section have ever said that ANY lds should be "put to the sword simply for being LDS."

 

[fatboys]

Document or retract.

I have as well and do you think that I or any one else would want to mesons record of idiots who want is dead? He is not making it up. Just because you would do such a thing there are many others who would and claim they love Jesus.