New Statement of Faith at Christian Forums

[Tonks]

Christian Forums has changed our Statement of Faith to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The Nicene Creed has a long history of being the normative Statement of Faith for CF and after much deliberation we feel it is in the best interest of the site to return to the oldest, and most widely used, profession of faith in Christianity.

I'm sure that there will be many questions which I'll try to address in a separate post (and I'm sure that there are a bunch that have not even crossed my mind so feel free to ask).

Christian Forums will be using the version of the Creed developed at the second Ecumenical Council held in 381AD in the city of Constantinople.

This is in effect immediately (as it is already published in the site's FAQ).

The Nicene Creed

We believe in (Romans 10: 8-10; 1 John 4: 15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6: 4, Ephesians 4: 6)
Father (Matthew 6: 9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6: 3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1: 1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1: 15-16)

And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11: 17)
Son of God, (Mathew 14: 33; 16: 16)
Only-Begotten, (John 1: 18; 3: 16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1: 2)
Light from Light; (Psalm 27: 1; John 8: 12; Matthew 17: 2,5)
True God from True God; (John 17: 1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1: 18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10: 30)
through whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1: 1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1 Timothy 2: 4-5)
came down from heaven, (John 6: 33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary (Luke 1: 35)
and became man. (John 1: 14)
And He was crucified for us (Mark 15: 25; 1 Corinthians 15: 3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19: 6)
suffered, (Mark 8: 31)
and was buried. (Luke 23: 53; 1 Corinthians 15: 4)
And on the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures, (Luke 24: 1 1 Corinthians 15: 4)
and ascended into heaven, (Luke 24: 51; Acts 1: 10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father; (Mark 16: 19; Acts 7: 55)
and He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24: 27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10: 42; 2 Timothy 4: 1)
Whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1: 11)

And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14: 26)
Lord, (Acts 5: 3-4)
Giver of Life, (Genesis 1: 2)
Who proceeds from the Father; (John 15: 26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3: 16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19: 20; Ezekiel 11: 5,13)

In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2: 5,9)
catholic*, (Mark 16: 15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2: 42; Ephesians 2: 19-22)

I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins**. (Ephesians 4: 5; Acts 2: 38)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11: 24; 1 Corinthians 15: 12-49; Hebrews 6: 2; Revelation 20: 5)
and the life in the age to come. (Mark 10: 29-30)

AMEN. (Psalm 106: 48)

*The word "catholic" (literally, "complete," "universal," or "according to the whole") refers to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not necessarily or exclusively to any particular visible denomination, institution, or doctrine.

**May be interpreted as baptism is a matter of obedience and not a requirement for salvation or as a regenerating ordinance.

 

[Tonks]

Q: Why are you changing the site's Statement of Faith? What is wrong with the current version?

A: There are a variety of reasons. A significant percentage of staff has been somewhat uneasy every since the Creed was removed. Almost like clockwork every few months in the Admin forum the question was raised: is now an appropriate time to discuss returning the Creed as CF's Statement of Faith? (In the most recent vote among Admins ~73% favored its return.) For a variety of reasons the discussion was continually pushed to the right as we all attempted to come up with a compromise which hit all of the points the site's Statement of Faith that we thought should be stressed. It usually ended up looking a lot like the Nicene Creed and in many cases we purposely modified what we had written so it did not appear like the Nicene Creed. In the final analysis this was not a satisfactory outcome. Likewise, as the oldest of the Creeds there are volumes upon volumes of church documents, theologians, Biblical commentaries which discuss the Creed in great (and sometimes extremely extensive) detail and how it applies to Chrisitanity not just today - but since its inception 1,628 years ago.

Likewise, there has been some "drift" towards the acceptability of heterodox - or flat out unorthodox - theology which passed for "acceptable" within the Christian Only sections of the website. In the aggregate senior CF staff found this troubling. CF is a big tent when it comes to belief (as it should be) but there are some boundary conditions and we'd like to return to a more mainstream Christianity.

Q: Isn't the Creed a "Catholic thing"?

A: Well, I'd prefer to call it an "orthodox" thing...but all joking aside the Creed is the oldest, and most widely accepted, profession of the Christian faith. Does it cover everything? Of course not. Other statements were considered but were rejected for lack of general universal acceptance. The Creed is given high importance in the majority of Christian denominations (both East and West) to include the following churches: Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, the Old Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, many Reformed churches, the Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church and many non-denominational Protestant churches.

Q: Why are there asterisks and what do they mean?

A: The Creed, when used as the Statement of Faith on CF, has historically used astricks on the words "catholic" and "baptism." As the explanations say - the word catholic can be interpreted to mean "universal," "according to the whole" etc and not to a specific denomination. It is the same with baptism...there are some that believe that it is required and is regenerative, there are some that think it is merely an ordinance commanded by Scripture, and there are some that thing that it is wholly irrelevant. In brief, the asterisk after "baptism" allows for those that affirm or those that deny baptismal regeneration.

On a personal level the asterisks are important to me because what they mean to me. To understand my reasoning (at least) here is a portion of my remarks when this decision was being batted around elsewhere on the site:

CF, in large part (in terms of active membership) is a Protestant site...and I use that to identify non RCC/EO/OO folks...don't shoot me it is just the word that I'm using. And by Protestant I mean evangelical / fundamentalist / non-denominational along with mainline, traditional etc.

A long time ago many of us (for whom this is not the first rodeo) became very, very tired of the Catholic/Protestant wars, the nickel and diming of every decision.

Like clockwork the Nicene Creed discussion occurred every few months among the Admins...should we or shouldn't we. The two big sticking points were always the words "catholic" and "baptism" - for good reasons. 1) CF has always had a history of having the Creed having addenda to those two specific points and 2) they were *much* bigger sticking points for the Protestant staff than they were for the RCC/EO/OO staff. Likewise, this isn't a Catholic site, an Orthodox site, a Lutheran site, an Anglican site...etc...the words "catholic" and "baptism" are a concern for a great many folks.

Are the asterisks faithful to the "original" meaning of the Creed? Of course not. Do they represent the manner in which much of the Protestant world interprets the Creed? You betcha. For CF, some of the drivers of the return of the Creed include: 1) it is the oldest universally acknowledged statement of the faith in the entirety of Christendom 2) it is Trinitarian and 3) if fixes some of the Christological issues inherent in the site's current statement of faith. For many that pass by CF, however, their concerns tend more towards the "catholic" and "baptism" sections of the Creed and it is for them that we acknowledge a different interpretation. There are many parts of the Creed that may cause problems but based on many, many years of experience it is those two points which are, by far, the biggest.

I want CF to be a big net that gathers Christians from all walks...many, many, many of which disagree with pretty much everything that I believe.

Q: Will the list of available faith icons remain the same? Will staff be forcing icon changes again?

A: Yes (list of icons can be found here). Staff will not be forcing anyone to change their selected faith icon - the only requirement to hold an icon is self-identification.

Q: How will the Creed be used in the "Christian Only" areas?

A: The Creed will be used much as the SOF currently is...to measure what is allowable in CO areas, and measure what isn't allowable in open areas.

Q: What about denominations that do not adhere to creeds or confessions?

A: There are several denominations on Christian Forums that do not adhere to formal creeds or confessions and - in some cases - flat out reject anything "creedal." All of the denominations on CF (and their associated Congregational forums) existed on CF in the past when the Nicene Creed was used as the basis for the site's Statement of Faith and will continue to exist with no change. The point of the exercise is not to force anyone to be "creedal" but to set boundaries for what is considered "orthodox Christianity" on CF.

Q: Some people say that premillennialism and other eschatological (end-times) scenarios are not covered by the Creed. Will this change on CF?

A: It is the position of the Advisors that premillennialism etc is permissible and members that hold various positions along the millennial timeline will see no change.

Q: The use of the past tense of the word 'speak' in this line: Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19:20 ; Ezekiel 11:5,13). Does this mean that we cannot believe that the Holy Spirit still works and speaks today? So how will the above quoted part concerning the Holy Spirit in the Nicean Creed be interpreted in regards to the Spirit-filled/Charismatics, Pentecostals, Charismatic Catholics, WOF, and non-WOF believers?

A: That line is a direct reference to the Holy Spirit's work through the prophets of the Old Testament. Those events are indeed in the past...thus past tense. I agree that the Holy Spirit is active in the world today...but that section, when written, was directly referring to the Holy Spirit's active participation in the lives of those chosen to lead God's people during historical times. The official stance of the Advisors is that the Holy Spirit is active today.

Q: What is CF's view on the Trinity?

A: Christian Forums affirms the orthodox view of the Trinity.

Q: Was this change approved by the site's owner?

A: Yes - over two weeks ago.

As a smart individual on this site said: Regardless of where we are in our spiritual path we need a recognised start point and the Nicene Creed is better than other alternatives.

 

[D'Ann]

Awesome. Well done. Thank you.

 

[drstevej]

Most excellent, thanks for the work on this.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Great news!

 

[twistertornado]

I'm so glad to see this here on CF! Thanks!

 

[Tychicus2]

Well Done !!!

Ty

 

[angelwind]

I like this too...

 

[desmalia]

 

[Angeldove97]

A great move-- though I don't expect anything will really change by this

 

[angelwind]

A great move-- though I don't expect anything will really change by this

That may be...but I like having a sure Christian covering here...

 

[LutherNut]

I don't believe that the Scriptures supports your asterisks on "baptism". You forgot to add the following verses: 1 Peter 3:21; Romans 6:4-5; Mark 16:16

 

[Tonks]

I may add Romans in but the point was to be somewhat denominationally sensitive...as that particularly part of the Creed has been a sticking point in the past.

 

[CaDan]

The baptism and ecclesiology wars are gonna be fun . . . .

 

[Tonks]

The baptism and ecclesiology wars are gonna be fun . . . .

I things are kept to a dull roar that is fine...if there is a lot of pot stirring I get headaches and then get cranky.

 

[CaDan]

Re: the Church.

You might want to change the capitalization of the word "Church".

 

[Fish and Bread]

*The word "catholic" (literally, "complete," "universal," or "according to the whole") refers to the complete, universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not exclusively to any particular visible denomination or doctrine.

No, it doesn't. I don't mean to be a stickler here, but this is defining the word catholic against both it's intent, and against the understandings of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches. It would be really helpful if there was a change in the wording to say something like "For the purpose of this website, the word catholic may be considered as referring to [as currently stated] and/or to a particular Church.". In fact, we could just leave it mostly as is, and cut out "and not exclusively to any particular visible denomination or doctrine", which might make it more widely acceptable.

In other words, the addendum about the word "catholic" should be reworded to give Catholics and Orthodox the leeway to interpret it in a traditional way that the addendum about baptism has by virtue of the word "may".

Um, apart from that, I don't like requiring people to believe anything to post somewhere in the first place. It's too restrictive and cuts out too many interesting people.

Yes, I managed to disagree with this from both the right *and* the left. I am very multifaceted in my crumudgeoniness.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Minor correction needed: Would you all change this back to the way it was before, when the Creed was used?--

"*The word "catholic" (literally, "complete," "universal," or "according to the whole") refers to the complete, universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not exclusively to any particular visible denomination or doctrine."

Last time it used a phrase along the lines of 'and does not necessarily'. The Q & A post that explains it has this allowance:
"word catholic can be interpreted to mean"


The statement as it stands is a statement of protestant theology which does not leave itself open to the contrary view. All it needs to say is that either view is okay- rather than affirming what the Church absolutely is not (and thus supposing protestant positions). This is probably just something missed, but it would be important to correct it so that either view can be held. Thanks!

 

[Gwendolyn]

oh gosh, nm, i am so exhausted that i am not making sense.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Strongly support this position.

I believe it is fundamentally important for every Christian to be able to explain, when asked, what it is exactly that they believe; here is my own statement of faith:

A Christian is a person who willingly believes:

1. That the Universe was created by God.
(Genesis 1:1)

2. That the Bible is divinely inspired by God, and describes how we are to live our lives in a manner that is pleasing to God.
(Matthew 24:14)

3. That we are all sinners and as such, according to the Bible, are destined to go to hell.
(Romans 3:23)

4. That God came to earth in the person of Jesus Christ and promised that if we repent of our sins, and ask God through the power of the Holy Spirit to guide us through life according to His will, that we will have eternal life and a place with Him in Heaven.
(John 3:16)