Uphill, Thanks for answering my questions and pointing out your post #84. Let me quote it here with my comments:
It is said that in the early Church it was particularly important to know who was truly Christian. The Creed was used kind of like a secret handshake. If you couldn't come to profess & believe the Creed wholeheartedly then you were not a Christian.
"truly Christian?" that's a funny statement to me.
The Creeds in and of itself is a great instructional tool. I have heard them compared to those "sea monsters" from the 70's that you could mail-order. You know, those little pellets you addeded water to and then they expanded into some sort of sea creature in your fish tank. Kind of like a dry sponge that expands to it's full size when made wet. The Creeds are similar in that they appear small on the surface, but they truly can expand to explain much of Salvation history.
and it's more effectual than the scripture that the Formal Creeds are based on?
The Church was meant to shepherd the sheep toward the truth of Christ. If someone obstinately refuses to believe the Creed then they are doctrinally incorrect about the truth of Christ.
which isn't the issue of the thread. I've stated numerous times that I don't disagree with anything found in the Nicene Creed.
I don't understand this statement of yours. If Creeds are based on Scripture then they automatically have REAL value.
Rather, it's the scripture itself that has the REAL value. Frankly, the Creed is just a regurgitation, when looked at critically, don't you think?
If newcomers are confounded by the Creed then I can assure you that they are going to be much more confounded by reading Scripture.
you can assure me of that, but you'd be wrong. I'm not talking about confounded by it's need and use.
take this for an example. I read a story about a woman who came to Christ. She was beset by people she knew who were Christians "of another stripe" than the church she was attending. They questioned her stridently about this, that, and the other thing. (most likely using their OWN confession of faith, or Formal Creed as the measuring bar. The womans response was "I don't know about that. All I know, is that when I was alone, these people, they held my baby."
I found it kind of touching, actually.
The Creeds can help them better understand the Gospels. It sounds like the bigger problem is sound teaching.
and who's to say that even USING the creed, that sound teaching is guaranteed? For example, some agree, and some disagree that the "one holy and Apostolic catholic church" means the RCC. some don't. Some believe that the one baptism is neccessarily a water baptism, some don't. Without arguing about who is, and who is not right... someone ISN'T teaching truth.... and they are BOTH using the Creed.
Finally, I want to say this is a fascinating topic. I personally never heard of the Creeds growing up (Baptist), but I've found them to be a great way to profess and teach our faith to others. In many ways, it is a lot like the "Old Roman Road to Salvation" teaching of many evangelicals.
Thanks for starting thread.
you're welcome. I'm not sure everyone else shares your enthusiasm, but it's kind of you.
Creeds don't cause division. It's like saying guns shoot people or cars run over people. People are always at the root of the problem.
BINGO! And it's used as a "you're not good enough, you're not welcome, you dont' believe X so therefore you must not be Christian, or ORTHODOX enough, or paying attention, or (insert slander here.)
"I reject creeds" is a creed.
now I have a headache.
Another soul who totally misunderstands what is said. I honestly believe that most people just read what they want to read and skip over all those dumb finer details.
human nature.
And this makes the point that I took from the OP- that the Creed or creeds inthemselves are not salvific. It is for this reason that this thread- and many others that reside in GT actually belong in the "Soteriology" sub-fora.
so it can die a slow death, ignored by the general populace of the forums.
It is clear that the purpose of creeds has always been to unite those of one confession. A consequence of their existence is that there becomes a group who are not "in," case in point, Arians.
or, a more modern example, just some other Christians who don't pay much attention to the Creeds... wholly unacceptable to those who cling to it.
Whether or not this is important is in the eye of the beholder. It is clear that your emphasis is individual in scope.
that's pretty much all any opinion is, Rdr. Whether or not you have others who believe like you, your belief is individual in scope.
There was a time, basically the first 4 centuries of the Church, when "membership" as it were within the Church was indeed seen as synonymous with being a Christian. This is why the early "confession" (by this I mean in the sacrament of) was referred to as "reconcilliation to the Body."
and look how it's been abused as time has passed.
Personally, I think an either/or approach to individual relationship and corporate relationship is imbalanced, and that particular imbalance is found writ large on GT.
And the authors of the familiar, ancient creeds would agree with you on this point. But this is is only part of the argument: Is there "benefit" in meditating upon the theological statements of the Nicene (so-called) Creed? Coupled with faith- not IN the Creed, but IN Christ- absolutely yes. Jesus is, always was, and always will be God, He did not become God. He became man. One can errantly conclude from scipture that Christ was made God (Today, thou has become My Son).
The Creed is theological, not soteriological per se. Presenting a united, Trintarian answer to Judaism and Islam is important, as thus God has revealed Himself to us.
sorry, I'm probably mistaken, but that last statement makes me think you are saying GOD intended the Creed be written.
The Creed does define orthodox belief. Does it define who is "saved?" No more than reciting the Pillars of Islam damn a person. Believing In Him is a statement open to a great deal of interpretation, which is why the Orthodox Church confesses that God alone is the Judge and Savior.
and by orthodox belief, it's clear that the position is that only the orthodox church does it right. This is one of the points of this thread.
The non-denoms are big on declaring the damnation of those who do not adopt thei simple, individualistic creed, which is "I believe in Jesus"- whatever THAT means.
outside of the Ultra-right "everyone else is the devil" types, I can't say that I've observed this.
Same holds for any teaching of any church or sect. The over-simplistic creeds of the non-denoms lead, in many cases, to a great deal of disagreement, freelancing, and frankly, error. Want proof? Take a look at the non-denom, revivalist movements that came out of New England between 1700- 1900: Unitarians, Mormons, Millerists and SDAs, JWs, Spiritualists, etc, etc.
that could be a REALLY good point, if there wasn't schism and division between the churches who cling to the Creeds tenaciously.
Are such saved or damned? God only knows. Are they presenting God as He revealed Himself to us? Orthodox Christians don't believe so.
Orthodox Christians don't believe ANYONE other than themselves are, frankly.