Does 'no Creed' lead to 'one Creed'?

[JDIBe]

A people's leaders are generally only as good as the people themselves.

Everyone can interpret that however they see fit....

 

[Sockroteez]

1) Alexander Campbell was prophesied in the Bible, DRA was not

"And I saw a messenger (Campbell) flying in mid-heaven [heaven = government] having the everlasting good message to proclaim to the [ones] sitting themselves [Middle Voice] on [face] of the earth, and on all nation and tribe and tongue and people" - Rev 14.6.

Is this accepted doctrine in the 'no creed but Christ' movement?

 

[JDIBe]

No.

This is the first time I've ever heard of this.

 

[- DRA -]

Is this accepted doctrine in the 'no creed but Christ' movement?

I'm in agreement with JDIBe. This is the first time I've ever heard of such teaching. It reminds me of the Corinthians misplaced devotion to different preachers in 1 Corinthians 1:10-13.

 

[Sockroteez]

I'm in agreement with JDIBe. This is the first time I've ever heard of such teaching. It reminds me of the Corinthians misplaced devotion to different preachers in 1 Corinthians 1:10-13.

Ok... that is good to hear ...

However, it does harken to the OP. The person who holds that view can do so with as much validity as any other if there is no agreed Creed. Someone mentioned in an earlier post that Creeds have the disadvantage of allowing change, and the advantage of limiting heretical ideas. This is true. I think the problem that we have is that Christianity has become so diverse that another universal Council, and a mutually agreed upon Creed is likely far from possible.

My concern on this point is how anyone can be sure of their beliefs. If you hold to beliefs that precede your own, you are accepting some measure of a 'Creed', on the other hand, if you start from scratch, you cannot claim any more truth to your personal 'Creed' than any other person in the history of Christian thought. Personally, I cannot go that route because I would never be so bold as to think I am more illuminated than centuries of Bishops and Theologians which established, defended, and held to, the Nicene Creed which is the greatest statement of Orthodox Christian faith.

As a note to the last statement: a previous post mentioned that Creeds do 3 things: add to scripture, detract from scripture, or say the same thing as scripture. I would propose a fourth: they can clarify scripture. The nature of the Nicene Creed was to establish Orthodoxy as opposed to various different groups, all of whom believed they were correct. The prime adversary was Arius, the Bishop of Alexandria. Alexandria was recognized as one of the major centers of the Faith. To put it in short terms: If you believe in the Divinity of Jesus, you believe this because the Fathers who clarified and defined it in the Creed believed it, and condemned the Arian view as heretical. Arius was using the same canon of Scriptures as the Orthodox Fathers, which is essentially the same as we use. For the purpose of this thread, we can identify three groups:

1. 'No Creed but Christ'
2. The Orthodox Fathers of the Nicene Creed
3. Arius and the 'Arians' who followed his teachings

All cannot be correct, but all claim the same foundation of the same Scriptures. There is not an absolute interpretation of Scripture that we will naturally arrive at. If this were so, there would be no need to even conceive of a 'Creed' of any kind. But history has shown otherwise.

 

[JDIBe]

Ok... that is good to hear ...

However, it does harken to the OP. The person who holds that view can do so with as much validity as any other if there is no agreed Creed.

No, not really. If that view does not stand the test of Scripture, it is invalid. The "agreed Creed" is simply the Bible. God can make Himself just as understandable (and even more) than any man can.

Someone mentioned in an earlier post that Creeds have the disadvantage of allowing change, and the advantage of limiting heretical ideas. This is true. I think the problem that we have is that Christianity has become so diverse that another universal Council, and a mutually agreed upon Creed is likely far from possible.

Which is more important though, that people "mutually agree" on a subject or that we agree with God on a subject? Is the majority always right?

My concern on this point is how anyone can be sure of their beliefs. If you hold to beliefs that precede your own, you are accepting some measure of a 'Creed', on the other hand, if you start from scratch, you cannot claim any more truth to your personal 'Creed' than any other person in the history of Christian thought. Personally, I cannot go that route because I would never be so bold as to think I am more illuminated than centuries of Bishops and Theologians which established, defended, and held to, the Nicene Creed which is the greatest statement of Orthodox Christian faith.

I understand your concern. But really in the grand scheme of things relying on tradition doesn't really leave you in any better shape. Which tradition do I follow? Anglican? Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Oriental Orthodox? Which one is the "True Church"? There has to be some totally reliable standard, something even better than those Bishops and Theologians, something THEY relied on to form their beliefs. Our point is, you don't have to "start from scratch". You can even weigh what those bishops say against what you KNOW to be true and that is the Bible. I do not start from scratch because I would never be so bold as to think I am more illuminated than John, Paul, Peter, Luke, etc. And you know what? I'll bet if you asked those ECF the same question, they would tell you the exact same thing about themselves also.

As a note to the last statement: a previous post mentioned that Creeds do 3 things: add to scripture, detract from scripture, or say the same thing as scripture. I would propose a fourth: they can clarify scripture. The nature of the Nicene Creed was to establish Orthodoxy as opposed to various different groups, all of whom believed they were correct. The prime adversary was Arius, the Bishop of Alexandria. Alexandria was recognized as one of the major centers of the Faith.

True, but a clarification is never the same as the actual thing. It is only an explanation. A clarification always points back to the original. When the clarification becomes and replaces the actual thing, error is easily introduced.

To put it in short terms: If you believe in the Divinity of Jesus, you believe this because the Fathers who clarified and defined it in the Creed believed it, and condemned the Arian view as heretical. Arius was using the same canon of Scriptures as the Orthodox Fathers, which is essentially the same as we use.

1Co 8:6 yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

For the purpose of this thread, we can identify three groups:

1. 'No Creed but Christ'
2. The Orthodox Fathers of the Nicene Creed
3. Arius and the 'Arians' who followed his teachings

All cannot be correct, but all claim the same foundation of the same Scriptures. There is not an absolute interpretation of Scripture that we will naturally arrive at. If this were so, there would be no need to even conceive of a 'Creed' of any kind. But history has shown otherwise.

But also as you have said, there is no creed that everyone can agree on either. So I suppose by that logic, creeds are useless, too. If tradition were the best thing to follow, there would only be one Church "tradition". But history has proven that not to be the case either. There are many "traditions" all claiming to have originated from the same source.

Now here is the important question: "What, in your opinion, caused there to be a Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, O. Orthodox, etc, instead of just one Church?" What is the main root of this dissention? Answer that question and you have the base on which the RM was founded.

 

[Sockroteez]

We do not believe in the Divinity of Jesus and the concept of the Trinity simply because a council tells us so. We believe these things because they are told to us and fit what we know of God and Jesus through the Bible. I suspect those members who drafted such statements would tell you the same. It is by following and knowing the Bible and not the creeds of man that we end up on the proper path, and can recognize when those who wish to teach us are off of it. (I would note that Marcion attempted to cut out certain books of the Bible. Many heresies begin this way. The Scriptures say what they say, not what we WISH they would say sometimes.)

The reason that what we know as 'Orthodox' Christian doctrines have come down to us is due to the fact that the Fathers of the councils had to gather together to determine what was held in common belief amongst the 'Orthodox' Churches. The reason for the divisions they were addressing was differing interpretations of the existing scriptures, as well as the differing opinions on what actually WAS Scripture. The thought that there was a monolithic Orthodox Church with the occasional small heretical group is a myth. Marcion, in fact, was possibly the first one to think about establishing a Canon of Scripture. The Gnostics had their collections (the Nag Hammadhi Library is strong evidence for that). Of course the main group that the Fathers were fighting in the 4th century were the Arians. Arius was a Bishop in Alexandria, and certainly a very learned and sincere man. He and his followers believed that they had the correct interpretation of Scripture as much as the Orthodox Church did. Evidence shows that Arianism was a very large scale movement, so large that Constantine called for the Church convene the Council of Nicea to decide what the correct teachings of the Church were. Out of that, and a subsequent council in Constantinople, we get the Nicene Creed which defined the teachings of Orthodox Christianity and condemned all other sects as heretical.

The point is that the Bible alone will not of necessity lead a man to 'Orthodoxy'. We believe what we believe because men before us defined and clarified it, and subsequent generations have held it and passed it down. Most 'heretics', especially those of the first three centuries, were not deliberate rejectors of Orthodoxy, but believed they WERE Orthodox. If our Orthodox beliefs are indeed the true ones, it is only through God's providence and will... otherwise, Arianism might have proven victorious, and we would consider it heresy today to call Jesus 'God'.

This is a major reason I reject 'Sola Scriptura'...

 

[Sockroteez]

Now here is the important question: "What, in your opinion, caused there to be a Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, O. Orthodox, etc, instead of just one Church?" What is the main root of this dissention? Answer that question and you have the base on which the RM was founded.

At the base, different cultures. Beyond this, politics. Together with these, the belief of people that their position is right, and that they are directed by, and in the will of, God. The focal points on this matter are the slow estrangement between the Eastern and Western Churches throughout the Middle Ages which finally culminated in the decisive Schism of 1054, and second, the exodus of multitudes from the Roman Catholic Church during and following the Reformation. Of course, if events had panned out the way Luther intended, it would have resulted in corrections within the Roman Catholic Church, and not a break FROM the Catholic Church. In a great sense, the Catholic Church caused the Situation to explode into the full split by paying more attention to Luther than they probably needed to. After all, in reality, Martin Luther was simply a Monk, learned, but still just one man. But, by magnifying the issue as they did, Luther was then compelled to speak out all the louder, and many people began to 'ride his coattail' and the Reformation movement was truly born. Most of these people were more concerned with practical issues that freedom from the oppression of Rome would bring about than about theological issues. Of course certain men, such as Calvin and Zwingly raised the situation to higher levels and began to conceive new confessions and doctrine. Thus, the seeds of modern sectarian Christianity was planted, and the branches continue to grow, and further divide down to this day.

It is my conviction that a true restoration movement is a return to the beliefs as propounded by the Universal Orthodox church before East and West effectively cut their ties. To look back before the Councils is to allow the possibility that the Christianity we end up with contradicts historical and traditional Orthodoxy.

 

[- DRA -]

It is my conviction that a true restoration movement is a return to the beliefs as propounded by the Universal Orthodox church before East and West effectively cut their ties. To look back before the Councils is to allow the possibility that the Christianity we end up with contradicts historical and traditional Orthodoxy.

My conviction is that a true restoration needs to return the church to the New Testament pattern. For instance, "the Universal Orthodox church before East and West effectively cut their ties" need to be considered in light of 1 Timothy 4:1-3. Concisely stated, a departure from the faith occurred as foretold in 1 Timothy 4. Therefore, we must ensure "restoration" returns to "the faith" - as contrasted with those who departed from the faith. From our perspective - some almost 2,000 years since the Lord established His church, true restoration should restore the church to the way He established it in the first century.

As for "historical and traditional Orthodoxy," we have to evaluate the history and traditions in light of God's word (i.e., Holy Scriptures). History with traditions founded on the teachings of men and based on the wrong side of truth (e.g., 1 Tim. 4:1-3) are not characteristic of true restoration to the Lord's church.

 

[- DRA -]

Ok... that is good to hear ...

However, it does harken to the OP. The person who holds that view can do so with as much validity as any other if there is no agreed Creed. Someone mentioned in an earlier post that Creeds have the disadvantage of allowing change, and the advantage of limiting heretical ideas. This is true. I think the problem that we have is that Christianity has become so diverse that another universal Council, and a mutually agreed upon Creed is likely far from possible.

I tend to take a different view of "validity." I guess I missed the part about needing a Creed verify a particular belief or line of reasoning. Why not just follow the new covenant or new testament of our Lord? As I previously mentioned, there was division in the church in Corinth in the first century according to 1 Cor. 1:10-13. Was a Creed the solution to this problem?

My concern on this point is how anyone can be sure of their beliefs. If you hold to beliefs that precede your own, you are accepting some measure of a 'Creed', on the other hand, if you start from scratch, you cannot claim any more truth to your personal 'Creed' than any other person in the history of Christian thought. Personally, I cannot go that route because I would never be so bold as to think I am more illuminated than centuries of Bishops and Theologians which established, defended, and held to, the Nicene Creed which is the greatest statement of Orthodox Christian faith.

As for "being sure of your beliefs," I highly recommend spending some time at the feet of the Master Teacher. Matthew 4:5-7. Matthew 22:23-33. Matthew 22:41-46. I believe these passage teach basic principles of Bible interpretation that are often overlooked or misunderstood.

As I've said before, a creed does one of three things: 1.) adds to Scripture 2.) subtracts from (i.e., undermines) Scripture 3.) says the same thing the Scriptures say. The first two options are condemned, and the third is not necessary.

As a note to the last statement: a previous post mentioned that Creeds do 3 things: add to scripture, detract from scripture, or say the same thing as scripture. I would propose a fourth: they can clarify scripture. The nature of the Nicene Creed was to establish Orthodoxy as opposed to various different groups, all of whom believed they were correct. The prime adversary was Arius, the Bishop of Alexandria. Alexandria was recognized as one of the major centers of the Faith. To put it in short terms: If you believe in the Divinity of Jesus, you believe this because the Fathers who clarified and defined it in the Creed believed it, and condemned the Arian view as heretical. Arius was using the same canon of Scriptures as the Orthodox Fathers, which is essentially the same as we use.

I don't like the fourth proposal. It suggests/implies/infers that God didn't make things clear enough in His word. As I suggested, the only option relating to a creed worth considering is that it is says the same thing that the Scriptures say. So, why have it? Establish the truth of the matter per God's word and let that be sufficient. The truth is understandable per our Lord in John 8:32.

For the purpose of this thread, we can identify three groups:

1. 'No Creed but Christ'
2. The Orthodox Fathers of the Nicene Creed
3. Arius and the 'Arians' who followed his teachings

All cannot be correct, but all claim the same foundation of the same Scriptures. There is not an absolute interpretation of Scripture that we will naturally arrive at. If this were so, there would be no need to even conceive of a 'Creed' of any kind. But history has shown otherwise.

Now, it's my turn to suggest a fourth proposal. Follow the faithful examples of New Testament Christians who served God faithfully according to His word. They simply followed the teachings of our Lord combined with the "apostles' doctrine" (Acts 2:42).

As previously suggested, Jesus teaches more about scriptural interpretation than folks give Him credit for. Matthew 4:5-7 is a good starting point.

History shows us that mankind allows a multitude of things to obscure the truth (e.g., Matthew 12:22-24, 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12).

 

[Sockroteez]

I tend to take a different view of "validity." I guess I missed the part about needing a Creed verify a particular belief or line of reasoning. Why not just follow the new covenant or new testament of our Lord? As I previously mentioned, there was division in the church in Corinth in the first century according to 1 Cor. 1:10-13. Was a Creed the solution to this problem?



As for "being sure of your beliefs," I highly recommend spending some time at the feet of the Master Teacher. Matthew 4:5-7. Matthew 22:23-33. Matthew 22:41-46. I believe these passage teach basic principles of Bible interpretation that are often overlooked or misunderstood.

As I've said before, a creed does one of three things: 1.) adds to Scripture 2.) subtracts from (i.e., undermines) Scripture 3.) says the same thing the Scriptures say. The first two options are condemned, and the third is not necessary.



I don't like the fourth proposal. It suggests/implies/infers that God didn't make things clear enough in His word. As I suggested, the only option relating to a creed worth considering is that it is says the same thing that the Scriptures say. So, why have it? Establish the truth of the matter per God's word and let that be sufficient. The truth is understandable per our Lord in John 8:32.



Now, it's my turn to suggest a fourth proposal. Follow the faithful examples of New Testament Christians who served God faithfully according to His word. They simply followed the teachings of our Lord combined with the "apostles' doctrine" (Acts 2:42).

As previously suggested, Jesus teaches more about scriptural interpretation than folks give Him credit for. Matthew 4:5-7 is a good starting point.

History shows us that mankind allows a multitude of things to obscure the truth (e.g., Matthew 12:22-24, 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12).

Through your several posts, I think I understand whre you are coming from... return to a simple following of what we read in the New Testament with much less of a considration of defined creeds, dogmas or doctrines.

Am I off base?

 

[Ghettoflame]

It's not so much about biblical interpretation as much as it is about how we go about interpretation.

You see, people start making what they believe about the bible a gospel in itself. Somethings are absolute, like how the bible speaks of sexual sins, but others, like Revelation brings different thoughts to individual minds. Not everyone thinks the exact same thing when referring to Jesus' return, so as long as what's being said is contextual and isn't being broached as if the person has seen what they think is true.

We just have to be humble and admit that what we believe about certain things isn't 100% evident.

 

[Mozartboy]

The churchakrist has many creeds. 5 steps of the plan of salvation, 5 acts of worship, "bible things by bible names," (which BTW, "Bible isn't in the Bible.) You may object, "but these are simply summaries of what the Bible teaches." I would respond, that's all a creed is.

 

[- DRA -]

It's not so much about biblical interpretation as much as it is about how we go about interpretation.

You see, people start making what they believe about the bible a gospel in itself. Somethings are absolute, like how the bible speaks of sexual sins, but others, like Revelation brings different thoughts to individual minds. Not everyone thinks the exact same thing when referring to Jesus' return, so as long as what's being said is contextual and isn't being broached as if the person has seen what they think is true.

We just have to be humble and admit that what we believe about certain things isn't 100% evident.

Agreed. How we go about biblical interpretation is the heart of the matter. With this in mind, I suggest we give diligence (or study) to three principles:
1.) The truth is understandable per John 8:32
2.) An understanding from one passage/text will harmonize with other passages/text when the truth is obtained. Conversely, when understandings don't harmonize, the truth has not been obtained. This basic principle of Bible interpretation is taught by the Lord in texts such as Matthew 4:5-7 and Matthew 22:23-33.
3.) Discerning truth is NOT about which man/woman is right, but about God being right per Romans 3:4.

 

[- DRA -]

The churchakrist has many creeds. 5 steps of the plan of salvation, 5 acts of worship, "bible things by bible names," (which BTW, "Bible isn't in the Bible.) You may object, "but these are simply summaries of what the Bible teaches." I would respond, that's all a creed is.

As mentioned in the previous post, truth is determined NOT by what men/women believe per se, but by what God declares to be the truth (Romans 3:4).

As for the "5 steps of the plan of salvation," I sincerely believe that to be initally saved from sin involves hearing God's word; acceptance of His word by faith or belief in Jesus as God's Son and our Lord; repenting of sins in our lives to follow the Lord; confessing Jesus as Lord and Christ; and being baptized to be united with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection where we die to sins, are freed from them, and become a new person in Christ (i.e., be born again). After obeying these requirements under the gospel of Christ (NOT per some so-called church of Christ creed), Christians should remain faithful until death. That makes a total of "6 steps" or requirements. Do you disagree with these requirements? If so, which passage or text is the basis for disagreement? Would it be Romans 10:9-17, Hebrews 11:6, Acts 2:38, Matthew 10:32-33, Romans 6:3-11, or 1 Corinthians 10:1-13?

The same principle applies to worship and the need for authority from the Lord per Colossians 3:17. It's all about what the Bible teaches, not about any "creed."

The word “Bible” had its beginning with the byblos, the Greek word for papyrus, the writing material of the first century. Biblion meant a book, and over time the Bible came to refer to the collection of inspired books (a book of books), a compilation of Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:3).

Disagree with your assessment of a creed. History reveals its place has been to draw a line in the sand, so to speak. Its use has been to define fellowship. Granted, fellowship has its boundaries per passages such as 2 John 9-11 and Ephesians 5:11. Fellowship, whether extended or denied, is based upon God's word ... assuming, of course, that one is sincere in pleasing and serving the Lord by following the truth of His word.

 

[Mozartboy]

..... seeing as how the "New Testament Church" didn't have closed canon until well after the apostolic period, and that had a different list.

 

[- DRA -]

..... seeing as how the "New Testament Church" didn't have closed canon until well after the apostolic period, and that had a different list.

Are you sure?

Peter referred to Paul's writings as Scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-16. And, Paul referred to the quote from the gospel of Luke as Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18. What makes you think the first-century church didn't recognize the epistles/books of the N.T. as Scripture?

 

[Mike Ward]

As for the "5 steps of the plan of salvation," I sincerely believe that to be initally saved from sin involves hearing God's word; acceptance of His word by faith or belief in Jesus as God's Son and our Lord; repenting of sins in our lives to follow the Lord; confessing Jesus as Lord and Christ; and being baptized to be united with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection where we die to sins, are freed from them, and become a new person in Christ (i.e., be born again). After obeying these requirements under the gospel of Christ (NOT per some so-called church of Christ creed), Christians should remain faithful until death. That makes a total of "6 steps" or requirements. Do you disagree with these requirements?

Isn't this what a creed is? When you right down doctrine in your own words and ask others to affirm whether or not they beleive it?

 

[- DRA -]

Isn't this what a creed is? When you right down doctrine in your own words and ask others to affirm whether or not they beleive it?

If this is the correct definition of a creed, then Philip established one in Acts 8:37; and Paul another in Acts 19:3-5, and John another in 2 John 9-11. In fact, given some thought ... and assuming the proposed definition for a creed is correct, then the N.T. is filled with creeds. If such is the case, would there be a difference in "inspired creeds" versus "man-made creeds?"

What think ye?

 

[Jamey]

From the OABS class I took a few nights ago on rightly dividing the word
the subject of creeds:
"If more than the Bible-We reject becuase it is more than the word (not inspired)

"if less than the Bible-We reject because it is lacking the word

"if different than the Bible-We reject because it is different (another Gospel)

"if the same as the Bible-We reject because it is redundant"

Just thought it was funny that we just went over that.
J.