The Danger Of Creedal Thinking (Trinity oversimplification)

GingerBeer · May 20, 2019

Grip Docility said:
Again, there are conflicting creeds. Which creeds do you endorse?

I do not know of any conflicting church creeds.

Grip Docility · May 20, 2019

GingerBeer said:
I do not know of any conflicting church creeds.

Again... Please name the Creeds you adhere to, so I can understand you better. Please.

GingerBeer · May 20, 2019

Grip Docility said:
Again... Please name the Creeds you adhere to, so I can understand you better. Please.

The Nicene creed, you too adhere to it do you not?

Grip Docility · May 20, 2019

GingerBeer said:
The Nicene creed, you too adhere to it do you not?

We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again with glory
to judge the living and the dead.
His kingdom will never end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life.
He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
He spoke through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look forward to the resurrection of the dead,
and to life in the world to come. Amen.

.................................

As long as Jesus is Lord Of the BOC.... and no Man or Organization is given the power to Lord over the Invisible BOC...

Baptism is recognized as the Metaphor for Salvation which isn’t a literal requirement for Salvation, but is more than wonderful to literally do, as some simply confess Christ’s name and accept His DBR and Him into their heart...

Sure... It serves as a fair way to unify people.

Adding this though... if someone today can’t glean this stuff from scripture... they’re not studying.

Grip Docility · May 20, 2019

GingerBeer said:
The Nicene creed, you too adhere to it do you not?

I must add... I still don’t count that creed as a viable addition to scripture.

Scripture is King... Jesus is the King of Kings.

Reformed theologians start with the Nicene Creed then slowly add more and more extra biblical material.

I’m not okay with that approach.

TuxAme · May 20, 2019

You mean the 73 book canon, right? That's the one which was adopted by the Church.

Grip Docility · May 20, 2019

TuxAme said:
You mean the 73 book canon, right? That's the one which was adopted by the Church.

The additional 7 books you speak of have always been counted as adjacent to cannon as they were kept with the original Greek versions... and utilized by the first Pauline Universal Church, but they were considered companion writings.

I don’t reject them... Per Say, but the 66 are fine for me.

Am I envious of your extra 7?

Maybe!

Bruce Leiter · May 20, 2019

Grip Docility said:
I’m not going to create an OP with all the possible verses that could be used, but simply address a matter that I’ve come across too many times.

In simplicity... Many Denominations attempt to define the TriUnity Of God in all sorts of ways that impact the “Person’s” of the TriUnity.

I’m going to put this as real as I can. The early church isn’t defined by post John the Revelator’s students that carried forward Canonical, 66 book Chain Of custody.

The Early Church is what we see IN Scripture.

Now, that being said... When did the Early Church start?

There are views that contend over this matter. I could list about every place people argue it started from the 12 Apostles with Jesus to various passages in the book of Acts...

Who’s right? Depends on the personal view of whomever you ask!

But as for the TriUnity Of God, the Apostles are recorded as Baptizing two different ways and the reason this is recorded is to drive home a biblical Mystery.

Way one: In the Name Of the Father, In the Name Of the Son and in the Name Of the Holy Spirit.

Way two: In the Name Of Jesus.

You can find this in the Gospels and Acts.

Paul attributes the Name “Jesus” to the Tetragrammaton... in Romans 10

Philippians 2 tells us the highest name of names recorded in all of scripture.

Creeds that cry “Heresy” whenever their vain humanly contrived Philosophical extrapolations are contested have caused a Literal ignorance and dependence on such creeds within much of the collective BOC.

If the TriUnity Of God is to be “Learned”, it must be done in scripture and nowhere else!

If a believer only understands the Trinity, they have half the picture as the Early Church did not define a Trinity, but a TriUnity.

The very word Trinity is a shortened way of saying Triunity.

I’ll drop 2 Verses to drive my point home...

(Deuteronomy 6:4)
(1 John 5:7)

This is mega important to comprehend, because God’s greatest gift to us was created on Calvary, Packaged in the Tomb that “Joseph of Arimathea” placed Jesus’ Body in, and Fully cleared paid in full for Shipping Charges and Price on the Third day, when Jesus arose victorious over “Death”.

Tampering with any fact that, the Spiritual Marriage Of Creator And Creation, in Jesus, the Son Of God, The fullness of the Godhead Bodily, Died, Was Buried And Resurrected.... in any way shape or form, Destroys the power of the Gospel towards humanity.

Some people may never search out how to scripturally Prove that God is Three and those Three are uncompromisingly One, and that’s okay... but if a person desires to assist others and they are simply under the teachings of a creed of some sort, without intensive Biblical searching and study... they should probably either get hot and study, or leave that subject attached to an “I believe” button of sorts and refrain from commenting on the matter.

I agree that an over-reliance on creeds rather than the Bible is wrong. Saying that, a liberal scholar who didn't believe in the inspiration of the Bible said in his commentary on the Gospel of John that John believed in the Trinity (which means "3-in-1" in Latin). In John's gospel, the two-in-one Jesus and the Father in the first chapter and all the ones up to chapter 14, 15, and 16 are joined as a Person by the Holy Spirit in those chapters. Jesus unmistakably claims to be God in those intervening chapters by his seven "I AM" statements that he demonstrates with his miraculous signs. With the same "I AM" (ego eimi) of the Septuagint, he identifies himself with the God of the burning bush (Exodus 3 and 4). A study of that Gospel capped off by Thomas' profession of faith ("My Lord and my God") can show anyone the mystery of the 3-in-1 God.

Grip Docility · May 20, 2019

Bruce Leiter said:
I agree that an over-reliance on creeds rather than the Bible is wrong. Saying that, a liberal scholar who didn't believe in the inspiration of the Bible said in his commentary on the Gospel of John that John believed in the Trinity (which means "3-in-1" in Latin). In John's gospel, the two-in-one Jesus and the Father in the first chapter and all the ones up to chapter 14, 15, and 16 are joined as a Person by the Holy Spirit in those chapters. Jesus unmistakably claims to be God in those intervening chapters by his seven "I AM" statements that he demonstrates with his miraculous signs. With the same "I AM" (ego eimi) of the Septuagint, he identifies himself with the God of the burning bush (Exodus 3 and 4). A study of that Gospel capped off by Thomas' profession of faith ("My Lord and my God") can show anyone the mystery of the 3-in-1 God.

John, Exodus And Thomas are indeed beautiful passages for this!

Thank you so much for sharing your journey!!!

DamianWarS · May 20, 2019

Grip Docility said:
I have to be ornery and disagree with you, here.

It wasn’t until earlier in my life that I cast aside all brick and mortar teaching, that I started to read the book of John and SEE Who He Is.

I’m a pretty average person, so I’m gonna throw the Old not so flag on that one.

if you found the same conclusion that you first sought to shed it would suggest you never shed it to begin with.

Grip Docility · May 20, 2019

DamianWarS said:
if you found the same conclusion that you first sought to shed it would suggest you never shed it to begin with.

I indeed shed my original doctrine... as it never taught that Jesus was God.

It marginalized his Divinity.

When I found Romans 8:9, I cried to know Jesus Christ’s Holy Spirit dwells within us.

DamianWarS · May 20, 2019

Grip Docility said:
I indeed shed my original doctrine... as it never taught that Jesus was God.

It marginalized his Divinity.

When I found Romans 8:9, I cried to know Jesus Christ’s Holy Spirit dwells within us.

This is General Theology so I would think this is directed at Nicene Christianity (inclusive the nicene creed). If you first approached Christ through heretical doctrines incompatible with the Nicene creed then that seems out of scope to the OP.

Grip Docility · May 20, 2019

DamianWarS said:
This is General Theology so I would think this is directed at Nicene Christianity (inclusive the nicene creed). If you first approached Christ through heretical doctrines incompatible with the Nicene creed then that seems out of scope to the OP.

I was personally sharing my experience with you, to explain that Jesus can lead people into the Truth of Who He is.

I didn’t mean to be off topic. I hope you’ll pardon my error.

DamianWarS · May 20, 2019

Grip Docility said:
I was personally sharing my experience with you, to explain that Jesus can lead people into the Truth of Who He is.

I didn’t mean to be off topic. I hope you’ll pardon my error.

I'm not bothered by it, but my response was directed essentially at Nicene Christians saying Nicene Christians probably are unable to approach scripture outside of creedal thinking (even if they don't know it).

Jesus asked Peter who he was and Jesus remarked on Peter's response saying that flesh did not reveal this but only the Father. I think this shows us divine revelation is essential to our faith but this doesn't mean that we don't approach scripture already with preconceived ideas.

Grip Docility · May 20, 2019

DamianWarS said:
I'm not bothered by it, but my response was directed essentially at Nicene Christians saying Nicene Christians probably are unable to approach scripture outside of creedal thinking (even if they don't know it).

Jesus asked Peter who he was and Jesus remarked on Peter's response saying that flesh did not reveal this but only the Father. I think this shows us divine revelation is essential to our faith but this doesn't mean that we don't approach scripture already with preconceived ideas.

This is honest and true. It can take years of difficult search to shed preconceived notions. I admit this can be the case.

Fair and Sincere point.

As for any Creedal Christianity... I’m not all out against it... but I do get irritated when people collect creeds and pile commentaries and the like on top of scripture to the point they eventually let error in.

The least offensive possibility is that a person depends on the creeds and doesn’t search scripture out between them and God in matters.

That was my intended, overarching point.

DamianWarS · May 20, 2019

Grip Docility said:
This is honest and true. It can take years of difficult search to shed preconceived notions. I admit this can be the case.

Fair and Sincere point.

As for any Creedal Christianity... I’m not all out against it... but I do get irritated when people collect creeds and pile commentaries and the like on top of scripture to the point they eventually let error in.

The least offensive possibility is that a person depends on the creeds and doesn’t search scripture out between them and God in matters.

That was my intended, overarching point.

I would wager creedal thinking is so saturated that core doctrines like the dual nature of Christ or the concept of the Trinity are approached through creeds (or their product) first.

it's like reading the Nicene Creed then trying to find scripture to match it. the creed is first in this case (or the preconceived doctrines). For example, saying "let's search scripture for the Trinity" well you're probably going to find it because that's what you're searching for. You may not directly be citing a creed but the thinking comes it.

GingerBeer · May 20, 2019

Grip Docility said:
I must add... I still don’t count that creed as a viable addition to scripture.

Scripture is King... Jesus is the King of Kings.

Reformed theologians start with the Nicene Creed then slowly add more and more extra biblical material.

I’m not okay with that approach.

Who taught you what scripture is and to value it?

Grip Docility · May 20, 2019

GingerBeer said:
Who taught you what scripture is and to value it?

1 John 2:27

GingerBeer · May 20, 2019

Grip Docility said:
1 John 2:27

Why did you believe 1 John 2:27 and who taught you that John's first letter existed?

Grip Docility · May 20, 2019

GingerBeer said:
Why did you believe 1 John 2:27 and who taught you that John's first letter existed?

I studied the Bible out of fear, especially when I was little. I was raised under the Law, by my personal experience and upbringing.

The Danger Of Creedal Thinking (Trinity oversimplification)

Cool and refreshing with a kick!

Well-Known Member

Cool and refreshing with a kick!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Quis ut Deus?

Well-Known Member

A sinner saved by God's astounding grace and love

Well-Known Member

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Well-Known Member

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Well-Known Member

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Well-Known Member

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Cool and refreshing with a kick!

Well-Known Member

Cool and refreshing with a kick!

Well-Known Member

Similar threads