Demetrius194
HolySprit+ClearConscience=Salvation
a man can only write a creed based upon his own understanding.
Then what if that man is also Spirit-led, just as you say you are in your understanding, in your interpretation?
Upvote
0
a man can only write a creed based upon his own understanding.
A creed is a way of life of a believer. It is what they live by. The early disciples way of life was "Jesus is Lord." "If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10
What else did they have to believe?
I think you have a good point, but if you will not be careful with accusations and sharp comments, I will not have a desire to have an argument. I'm sorry if that bothers you, but it is my choice, and I'm not going to judge myself about it in any way, now or in the future.
It is hard for me to give an example from the Bible I have not already given, you seeming to require a more literal and strong support of my assertion that creeds are good.
I must also add that I do not really wish to argue with you all that much about it at all, having a feeling that in all probability I will not be able to convince you. So, just telling you in advance, I reserve a right to not reply to you.
I must say that my support for creeds does not so much stem from my support for them in general, but rather it was more of a way to express to this thread's author my concern about what have seemed to me at the time a leaning he may have had, towards an agnostic faith, it just seemed to me to be so, don't ask why. And my response was more as a warning, to warn that it *is* possible to know God for certain.
And that's what creeds provide, they seek to provide that sense of certainty, the "if nothing is right, then at least this is, except for the Bible itself".
Scripture is not as obvious sometimes, and it sometimes takes extra to be able to pull out its meaning out of it. This can lead to many heresies.
Just look at the number of denominations around, I mean not all uphold the truth (like Jehovah Witnesses, for example believe that Jesus is the archangel Michael who came in flesh, not the Living Word of the Trinity that became flesh), and most err at least in part.
If a document like that reflects truth, then why not consider it useful? It will not be the Bible, but it will be a true prophecy, something that can be used, like a spiritual letter from a true man of God, of whom God Himself has testified by means of some approvable way that his teachings are of God, for instance? Who would not at least consider such a letter, to seek to compare it to own beliefs?
I will say this: the Scripture itself, which you say you uphold so dearly, tells us to test the spirits if they are of God, namely whether they positively respond to the question "has Jesus Christ come in flesh?" (1 John 4:2). And take Nicene creed, for example, it does state that the Living Word of Trinity had incarnated. How much more of a proof you need that this creed is of God?
Maybe not much until heretics arose. Then they needed to clarify what they meant by "Jesus", "is", and "Lord". Because the heretics were saying the same thing but seemed to mean something totally different. All creedal formation and doctrinal work is done as a response to heresy. Doctrine is defense. It is sad that it is needed, but it certainly is needed.
Then what if that man is also Spirit-led, just as you say you are in your understanding, in your interpretation?
Hello Tree of Life,Some have suggested that it's not that there's churches with creeds and churches without creeds. Rather, there are churches with written creeds and churches without written creeds. But every church has a creed. The question is whether or not it's clear and written down.
The problem with saying: "No creed but Christ" or "No creed but Scripture" is that as soon as I ask: "who is Jesus Christ?" or "what does Scripture teach?" then we're beginning to form a creed.
No?
Some have suggested that it's not that there's churches with creeds and churches without creeds. Rather, there are churches with written creeds and churches without written creeds. But every church has a creed. The question is whether or not it's clear and written down.
The problem with saying: "No creed but Christ" or "No creed but Scripture" is that as soon as I ask: "who is Jesus Christ?" or "what does Scripture teach?" then we're beginning to form a creed.
No?
Some have suggested that it's not that there's churches with creeds and churches without creeds. Rather, there are churches with written creeds and churches without written creeds. But every church has a creed. The question is whether or not it's clear and written down.
The problem with saying: "No creed but Christ" or "No creed but Scripture" is that as soon as I ask: "who is Jesus Christ?" or "what does Scripture teach?" then we're beginning to form a creed.
No?