Forum Rule 6 Amendment: Apostle's Creed removed

[Erwin]

If you keep kicking people out of the Chrisitan Club, there will soon no one left.

You will note that this site probably brings together MORE Christian denominations and churches than any other. What other site has Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, and Messianics, and all their sub-denominations, together and existing side-by-side? The Society of Friends is part of Protestantism and is accepted. We are not here to kick people out of the "Christian Club". I have even made rules so that Liberal Christians are accepted.

Rule 6 is there to exclude the churches, cults and sects that claim to be Christian but are based on heresy. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Shekinahs]

Notice that I said affirmed. The Orthodox Catholic Church was an instrument of the Holy Spirit Who worked through the Council of Nicea to affirm those timeless truths set down in the Creed.

It has been the be all and end all for 1500 years of Christianity. If you cannot confess the Creed, you are not a Christian, in the eyes of the Church, and (thankfully) this message board.

Whattttttt??

Ok, keep thinking that.

I'm Protestant and I do not need the rules of another church to define my Christianity. Nor do I need the creed to justify my salvation with Jesus. And my sins are forgiven because I have confessed them and accepted the blood of Jesus. He is my savior and Lord and his blood was shed for me BEFORE pen hit the paper on the creed. I do not need a 1500 year old creed to determine my relationship with Christ.

I have no fundamental problem with what the creed says. I read it and I'm ok with it but I do not NEED it. I do think it's odd this board uses it to define Christianity simply because I see this board as non denominational. But the importance this creed is having to define Christians on this board is really puzzling my Baptist mind.

If this was a Catholic board then yea that would make sense but a general Christian board? At least I thought this was a general board to unite all Christians.

~ShekinahMoon~

 

[seebs]

I would bet that there's not a person at this site who does not hold at least one belief considered heretical by at least one of the major denominations. Excluding heretics is a tricky business at the best of times.

 

[Erwin]

At least I thought this was a general board to unite all Christians.

Yes, this is a general board to unite all Christians. But not everyone who calls themselves "Christian" is a Christian. We need a working definition for the purposes of our Christians-only forums. Rather than making the definition based on a single denomination, we base it on a creed that was formed by the Niceaen council to battle heresy at the beginnings of Christianity, before denominations ever came about, before there was what is now known as the Catholic church, the Protestant movement etc. etc. This definition, though it is not perfect, does indeed summarize the doctrines of being a Christian, and applies to Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, and Messianic believers. It also will exclude all heretical branches of Christianity.

Look, not everyone will be happy with this, and all for different reasons. We cannot please everyone. This was our original Rule 6 in any case, so we are just going back to how it was before we added the Apostle's Creed.

 

[Erwin]

I would bet that there's not a person at this site who does not hold at least one belief considered heretical by at least one of the major denominations. Excluding heretics is a tricky business at the best of times.

We are mainly trying to exclude sect and cult members from Christian-only areas. This should not affect the majority of Christian members.

 

[ukok]

I believe in the Nicene Creed, and i do agree with your removal of the Apostles Creed and I also understand that it could have been used as a loophole, by those who might abuse the intended fellowship for which CF was created.

 

[seebs]

Understood. I just worry a bit, because trying to decide which heresies are bad enough for exclusion, and which aren't, is a tricky business. There's certainly a slippery slope lying in wait down that road, although I think the Creed is probably durable enough to keep us from falling too far.

I do know a number of people who think that at least one large "cult" is still being allowed into the Christians-only forums, and who express a great deal of distress over this. I happen to think they're wrong, but I worry about the implications.

That said, as noted, I'm always going to be uncomfortable with any test of "true" Christianity other than asking people if, in their hearts, they consider themselves Christians. I would rather have fellowship with a few non-Christians who mistakenly believe themselves to be part of my faith than risk excluding even one Christian who has trouble with the words used for a given creed.

In the end, any policy can make two kinds of errors; it can mistakenly say "yes", or it can mistakenly say "no". Once, God's followers were very afraid of mistakenly saying "yes", and allowing someone impure or unclean to enter the temple. One day, a man came along who sought out the impure and unclean, and welcomed them into His kingdom; I believe this standard is the one we should follow.

The world is full of people who are full of the Holy Spirit, and essentially incompetent at theology. Doctrines such as the Trinity are beyond the comprehension of most, perhaps all, people. How shall we tell whether someone really understands the Trinity? Is it possible to accept it without understanding it? What does it mean to say that you "accept" a belief, if you don't understand it?

Any line drawn by mortals will have God's people both inside and outside that line.

 

[Risen Tree]

bah, you'll receive flak regardless of what standard you use. It won't be perfect; that's just the way it is.

 

[seebs]

This is why I am very skeptical of the benefits of having a standard. Of course, not having a standard gets flak too.

The danger is that this could replace Christianity with a democracy, and traditionally, we're a monarchy with a very very quiet monarch.

 

[Annabel Lee]

Hi there!

Thanks for retracting on the Society of Friends (Quakers). They are not trinitarian.... not even close.

Erwin didn't retract. The Society of Friends are allowed to post in the Christian-Only area.

Personally, I am glad to see the Apostle's Creed removed as a criteria for Christianity on this forum.

Why?

 

[seebs]

I'm pretty sure it's not that RSoF are allowed, or not allowed, as a group, but rather, that individual users who accept the Creed are allowed, and those who don't aren't.

 

[Oblio]

When did salvation become a test of comprehension of arcane theology?

What arcane Theology is affirmed in the Nicean Creed ?

Salvation is determined by the Lord, we cannot determine who has obtained it, that is NOT the purpose of the Creed. The purpose is to safeguard those truths which are non-negotiable, that which define the beliefs of all Christians, that which unites us in our faith and worship of the Holy Trinity.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I would like to second seebs' and Annabel Lee's concerns.

 

[seebs]

What arcane Theology is affirmed in the Nicean Creed?

I would guess that a solid majority of posters here cannot correctly articulate the doctrine of the Trinity without running afoul of at least one heresy for which people have been burned in the past.

Salvation is determined by the Lord, we cannot determine who has obtained it, that is NOT the purpose of the Creed. The purpose is to safeguard those truths which are non-negotiable, that which define the beliefs of all Christians, that which unites us in our faith and worship of the Holy Trinity.

That was the purpose of the Apostles' Creed, too.

The point is, Christians may easily be confused about such matters of theology, and still be followers of Christ.

 

[A Taffer]

This is what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has been trying to say. Christ is one in pupose with God, not one in physical body. They are literally father and son, begotten meaning "to be born." We do not calim that God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost are the same physicall person, but Three physical people, uited in common goals, powers, puposes, and possibly blood.

This is what the bible says:

KJV 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

In this verse we see that the Word is God.

John 1:1 ¶In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In this verse we see that Jesus is God.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Three different aspects of God but all still God. God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.

I hope this helps.

 

[Oblio]

I would guess that a solid majority of posters here cannot correctly articulate the doctrine of the Trinity without running afoul of at least one heresy for which people have been burned in the past.

I was interested in what part of the Creed was arcane, I see nothing there that fits this description. Is there a line that confuses you ?

That was the purpose of the Apostles' Creed, too.

And heresies arose. The N/C Creed was set forth to affirm the beliefs of all who were part of the Apostolic Catholic Church of Christ. Those that did not were heretics.

The point is, Christians may easily be confused about such matters of theology, and still be followers of Christ.

True enough.
The Creed still professes the truth and is set forth to guide those that follow Christ. No one has said if you don't understand the Trinity, or the intricacies of the council of Chalcedon, you are not a Christian.

Do you understand all of the Bible and its theological constructs ? Do you believe in the Bible ?

 

[Tinker Grey]

No one has said if you don't understand the Trinity, or the intricacies of the council of Chalcedon, you are not a Christian.

But the contention is that it would be wrong to affirm something (the Creed's take on the Trinity), when one doesn't understand the Trinity enought to know whether or not the Creed is correct.

 

[seebs]

I was interested in what part of the Creed was arcane, I see nothing there that fits this description. Is there a line that confuses you ?

I honestly have no idea how to understand the parts that cover the Trinity. I think it's probably right, but words rarely describe God correctly or completely.

I would call the Trinity "arcane". I am not yet convinced that most people, or even many people at all, fully understand it.

And heresies arose. The N/C Creed was set forth to affirm the beliefs of all who were part of the Apostolic Catholic Church of Christ. Those that did not were heretics.[/b]

So, a lot of people with a lot of different beliefs get together and start arguing over which interpretations are which. Have you ever read the alternatives that were under discussion?

Eventually, compromise positions are reached on some issues; others are decided by majority vote. Overall, the entire process consists of theologians defining God as fitting within the boxes described by certain words.

True enough.
The Creed still professes the truth and is set forth to guide those that follow Christ. No one has said if you don't understand the Trinity, or the intricacies of the council of Chalcedon, you are not a Christian.

But if you don't understand the Trinity, how can you meaningfully give assent to a creed which teaches it? You cannot assent to a thing without first understanding it!

Do you understand all of the Bible and its theological constructs ? Do you believe in the Bible ?

I believe that there are a couple of different books (some longer than others) which are called the Bible. What exactly it is, I am still trying to understand. I wouldn't say I "believe in the Bible" the way I "believe in God", certainly.

I don't think it's meaningful to give assent to a thing you don't understand.

When people say they "believe in the Bible", and they've never even read half of it, I don't think what they're saying means anything. Anyone who's never made it through the whole of the Levitical law cannot meaningfully claim to "believe in the Bible", because he's never read the whole Bible. The most he can say is "I believe in the Gospels", or "I believe in the Gospels, most of proverbs, a few selected Psalms, a snippet of Isaiah, and Paul's epistles".

If we were to truly enforce this policy, requiring that only people who genuinely believe in the Trinity as defined by the Nicene Creed post in Christians-only forums, I'd guess that a solid majority of our regular posters would be kicked out; it is simply not realistic to imagine that they understand the doctrine well enough to be described as "believing" it.

 

[Serapha]

I have had to remove the Apostle's Creed from Forum Rule 6.

This was our previous rule 6:



Hi there!

What about the Community of Christ church members on this forum. They embrace the Nicene Creed yet they hold the book of mormon and D & C as Scripture alongside The Holy Bible.

Are they to be considered as Christians or cults members?


~malaka~

 

[Erwin]

Please, if people wish to debate the doctrine of Trinity, there are Theological forums to do that.

Hi there!

What about the Community of Christ church members on this forum. They embrace the Nicene Creed yet they hold the book of mormon and D & C as Scripture alongside The Holy Bible.

Are they to be considered as Christians or cults members?

They hold the book of Mormon as Scripture? Are they a subset of the LDS church? In any case, no, they cannot post in the Christian-only forums. The book of Mormon is not part of Scripture. Again, I am not going to debate the reasons - that belongs to the Unorthodox Theological Doctrines forum.

As for the issue of whether Quakers are Trinitarians or not - I did some research online, and it would appear that most of them are.

I can see though that this issue is complicated. I am going to consider this a bit more, and see if I can come up with a better system.