Is it possible to be non-creedal?

[Demetrius194]

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?

 

[Tree of Life]

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?

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.

 

[aggie03]

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.

I'm not trying to be sharp, and you can't hear my tone of voice through typed words, but I assure you that I'm not attacking you personally. However, that doesn't change that we need to stand against things that are false and prove those things that are true. We both have to do that.

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 haven't seen a Biblical example yet that supports what you're claiming about creeds. I see the Bible teaching that commandments and doctrines of men have no place or standing in the religion of God's people (Matthew 15:1-9).

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.

To be honest, no person will be able to convince me of anything when it comes to God and eternal salvation. The only person I trust to handle those things is God himself. If you want to show me that there's something wrong with my understanding, you'll have to use the word of God to do that. I know this probably isn't the angle you were taking, but I thought it's worth pointing out; I won't be swayed with catch phrases, appeals to emotion, appeals to group, or anything other than the word of God. If you can show me where the Bible teaches something, then I'll believe it. I've changed many times in my life, and I don't mind changing more, but I tired of following the teachings of mankind years ago.

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.

I agree with you that agnosticism is not acceptable to God because he has left proof of Himself. I disagree with you that creeds are a valid way to prove God's existence. If a group of people truly believed that Santa is real, wrote songs about him, described him in writing, and formulated creeds for following him, does that make Santa real and knowable? Likewise, the fact that groups of people got together in the past to write about God in no way proves his reality.

However, God has not left himself "without witness" (Acts 14:17). God has provided ample proof of his existence in the creation so that every day and night declares his majesty (Psalm 19:1-2). There is so much evidence for the existence of God and his divine nature that people are left without excuse if they disbelieve (Romans 1:19-20). In addition to all that, we have the "prophetic word more fully confirmed" in the Scriptures, which provide ample evidence of God's ability to make promises and keep them (2 Peter 1:19). It is more than possible to prove the existence of God without the use of a creed.

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".

I think I've dealt with this concept already.

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.

Paul disagrees with you. He said that we can read and understand the things he wrote:

Ephesians 3:4: "When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ..."

We can read and understand the Bible; it is clear - more clear than anything people might put together. It just takes the willingness to put in the time and effort to learn what the Scriptures teach.

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.

Creeds, by definition create division within the body of Christ. The word of God, written by the Spirit of God, is designed to create and establish unity (Ephesians 4:2-6). We must be willing to allow the word and Spirit to work, but creeds will do nothing that the word of God cannot already do. In many cases, creeds work directly opposed to the word, creating additional divisions and groups that the Bible does not.

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?

Read Genesis 3:4-5. The only word Satan spoke that isn't true is the word "not". Everything else he said is correct.
Were Satan's words useful even though most were true? Read Matthew 4:1-11. Every word of Scripture that Satan quoted to tempt Jesus is true, but not accurately applied. Just because there is some truth in the creeds that people create doesn't make them necessary or helpful. Just because there are Scripture references in the creeds doesn't mean that they're accurate or truthful. Any truth that creeds might contain is already held in the Scriptures. There is no additional benefit from a creed that cannot be gained with the Bible. There does, however, exist great potential for negativity and harm, and the Scriptures appear to speak directly against creeds.

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?

Satan believes that Jesus is the son of God. So do all the demons. Does that make them of God? Demons even admitted that Jesus was the Christ before people knew it or were willing to confess it openly (Mark 1:24). Are they of God?

 

[MerriestHouse]

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.

From reading the history of our religious past, I think today's heretics are tomorrow's heroes. People are labeled heretics by anyone who disagrees with them. The Biblical definition of a heretic is, one who demanded that everyone should agree with his opinion. It was not one who held a different opinion. Paul says, "As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions." Paul did not side with the one that was esteeming one day over another, or their manner of eating or not eating. He said " . . . let every one be fully convinced in his own mind." Romans 14 The important thing was that their conscience was clear toward God.

The theology of the Reformed was against a thousand years of religious history and creeds. It was called heresy by scholars and church leaders.

 

[aggie03]

Then what if that man is also Spirit-led, just as you say you are in your understanding, in your interpretation?

If he were "Spirit-led", then he would have justification for creating the creed from the word of God, not just a feeling that he ought to do it. The lack of discernment among the modern church is very disturbing; claims abound concerning the Holy Spirit that are anything but holy. Surely, the Holy Spirit would not disagree with himself; if he thinks creeds are all right, then he would have told us so in the Scriptures.

I'm looking forward to your reply to my previous post, @Demetrius194.

 

[ripple the car]

Imo the Nicene Creed is entirely too complicated and technical. Likely, Apostolic Creeds would have sounded something like "There is One God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ", "Jesus is the Son of God", " Our Lord Jesus Christ is raised up from the dead", and "Our Lord will come". Tiny, simple expressions of faith like that.

 

[sonofedward]

creeds protect against heresy

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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?

Hello Tree of Life,

No. Not exactly. A creed simply articulates the notions that a certain set of Christian people at a certain time or place perceived to be being required for a true affirmation of faith. But, if we look at the semantics of the Restoration Movement's maxim, it isn't saying there's no creedal notion at all, but rather that if we have the writing of the Bible in our hands, that in and of itself should be a sufficient statement by which all Christians may fellowship.

Granted, this does assume some level of the doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture, and I'm not so sure the Bible really has been clear to all Christians at all times. Obviously, it hasn't been clear, or else there wouldn't have been such schisms and denominational friction throughout the various eras of The Church.

However, I think what we should be most attentive to in the Restoration Movement's maxim is the intent of its assertion; that intent is to bring all Christians together into ecumenical fellowship.

2PhiloVoid

 

[faroukfarouk]

There is a distinction between statements of faith, as useful summaries of what is believed from Scripture, and on the the other hand creeds and creedal subscription whereby the adherent seems formally to promise to read Scripture through the creeds. (Which came first, the Bible or what man has said about it?)

 

[nothead]

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?

In general I like the Restoration Movement's direction although I don't know exactly how I align with it.

I align WITH the Old Roman Symbol and the Apostle's Creed.

I do not align WITH any Creed after these.

And I've been influenced in the past by 21st Century Reformation website. Someone please tell me if this is not part of the Restoration Movement.

 

[Si_monfaith]

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?

The biggest issue facing mankind is knowledge of good & evil (Kge). It was Kge which separated mankind from God & tree of life (tol).

Lord restores access to tol (revel 2:7). So be set free from Kge through faith in Christ's death (rom 3:20; 7:4,6).