- Jan 24, 2008
- 5,788
- 1,036
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I am glad you have no creed. I hate that fricken band as I do all Christian Rock bands! Death to Creed! Hey what about Apolo creed?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No Creed?? Really?
- Thread starter Athanasias
- Start date
RefrusRevlis
Regular Member
I would like Creed but can't afford it: it's too expensive, I'll have to stick with Old Spice...
However, religious creeds are something I don't want. A human creed by it's very existence says that God's word for Christians (the New testament) is too hard to be understood and tht humans can do a better job of telling us God's will than God himself.
Mandating these human-instituted documents is clearly against the will of Jesus, even if they claim to just restate/frame what is already in the scriptures. The very act of mandating a creed is largely what makes it against the will of God; more perhaps than the content of the creed itself.
See Mark 7:7... it is a case of teaching the doctrines of men as if they were the doctrines of God.
ps I like the band Creed
Refrus
Upvote
0
- May 19, 2015
- 125,550
- 28,531
- 74
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
LLOJ subscribes 
http://www.christianforums.com/t7325748/
I reject the creeds
quote OP:
Not because I think there is neccessarily inaccurate statments in any particular creed, but because I don't believe that a creed has really anything to do with whether or not you are redeemed by Christ.
thoughts?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7325748/
I reject the creeds
quote OP:
Not because I think there is neccessarily inaccurate statments in any particular creed, but because I don't believe that a creed has really anything to do with whether or not you are redeemed by Christ.
thoughts?
Upvote
0
Wanda Short
Sola Scriptura
- Jan 23, 2010
- 6
- 2
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Republican
I agree with most of the creeds but because of the implication that Christ will come still in the future I can not agree with so I must reject the creeds. And yes, I am a full preterist. And yes, I also like the band Creed!
Upvote
0
DerSchweik
Spend time in His Word - every day
- Aug 31, 2007
- 70,186
- 161,375
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Guess I better Google the band Creed so I know what I'm talking about
Re Christian creeds though - I'm opposed to them, philosophically.
There's nothing wrong with someone - or even a group of someones delineating what they believe on certain subjects/topics/doctrines, etc., which is fundamentally what creeds are - a statement of someone's belief regarding what the bible says.
But as LLOJ noted in the link he provided, I too disbelieve that creeds do anything to further the unity of the body of Christ. Indeed, about all they do is further the unity of certain factions or sects within the body of Christ, thereby increasing factionalism within the body and thereby harming true unity.
I look to why creeds and catechisms were/are developed - first as a presumed need to counter false teachings (e.g. the earliest creeds, Apostles, Nicene, various Councils, etc.); and second as a means to identify different distinguishing beliefs among the various sects of Christianity. "I am of the _____ belief, while you are of the _____ belief." There is also a third reason for them - to give to the theologically ignorant, uneducated, unlearned a succinct and definitive outline of what (according to the authors of the creed/catechism) the bible says about key doctrinal topics.
There's no question false teachings / doctrines abound; and there's no question we must counter such falsehoods with the truth. But is a creed/catechism/confession the proper method for doing that? I don't think they are - for the primary reason that such statements are necessarily crafted and word-smithed by humans. As such, they become a supplement to the simplicity and purity of the Word itself.
Then there's the issue of factional identity within the body of Christ. While it's true we'll always have differing opinions about what the bible says on different issues, and it's true that we'll always have differing opinions about the relative weight we ought to place on such issues (e.g. how one is saved, how to conduct worship, etc. etc.) - I don't think its wise that we look to what different men have crafted by way of explaining/defining such differences as the authoritative source for making our decisions regarding with whom we should or should not associate or extend fellowship. I view this problem much the way I think Paul viewed the problem in the Corinthian church (I Cor 1:10ff) - "I am of Paul," "I am of "Apollos," "I am of _____" - Paul viewed such statements as being fundamentally divisive for the body inasmuch as the congregation was experiencing divisions on the basis of how they viewed these men rather than viewing themselves on the basis of what Christ had done for them.
Lastly, the issue of creeds/catechisms/confessions for the purposes of defining doctrine for the theologically unlearned/uneducated: I don't claim they are necessarily wrong in what they say (though there are some things in some that I believe are) - what bothers me is that they tend to take the focus for the target audience off the Word itself and put it on their articulation of what the Word means instead. My point here is that the bible, the New Testament in particular, was written largely and almost specifically for such an [unlearned/uneducated] audience. Not everyone in the first century was as educated as Paul was, yet the NT was written by men inspired by God for the purposes of teaching/instructing a largely neophyte audience of God and His plan that they might believe in Him. The Bereans, for example, were "noble" for searching the scriptures diligently to see if what they were being taught was in fact so (Acts 17:11). It's important imho that we always direct individuals to the bible for answers - that we urge them to study for themselves, to search the scriptures on their own, that they gain their own understanding of the gospel message and be confident in their own understanding why they believe what they believe.
Too many today rely on others to tell them what the bible says when the purpose of the bible was to give them this information directly, not through some interpretive mediator. We have one mediator - Christ (I Tim 2:5) - who is the Word (John 1) and:
Re Christian creeds though - I'm opposed to them, philosophically.
There's nothing wrong with someone - or even a group of someones delineating what they believe on certain subjects/topics/doctrines, etc., which is fundamentally what creeds are - a statement of someone's belief regarding what the bible says.
But as LLOJ noted in the link he provided, I too disbelieve that creeds do anything to further the unity of the body of Christ. Indeed, about all they do is further the unity of certain factions or sects within the body of Christ, thereby increasing factionalism within the body and thereby harming true unity.
I look to why creeds and catechisms were/are developed - first as a presumed need to counter false teachings (e.g. the earliest creeds, Apostles, Nicene, various Councils, etc.); and second as a means to identify different distinguishing beliefs among the various sects of Christianity. "I am of the _____ belief, while you are of the _____ belief." There is also a third reason for them - to give to the theologically ignorant, uneducated, unlearned a succinct and definitive outline of what (according to the authors of the creed/catechism) the bible says about key doctrinal topics.
There's no question false teachings / doctrines abound; and there's no question we must counter such falsehoods with the truth. But is a creed/catechism/confession the proper method for doing that? I don't think they are - for the primary reason that such statements are necessarily crafted and word-smithed by humans. As such, they become a supplement to the simplicity and purity of the Word itself.
Then there's the issue of factional identity within the body of Christ. While it's true we'll always have differing opinions about what the bible says on different issues, and it's true that we'll always have differing opinions about the relative weight we ought to place on such issues (e.g. how one is saved, how to conduct worship, etc. etc.) - I don't think its wise that we look to what different men have crafted by way of explaining/defining such differences as the authoritative source for making our decisions regarding with whom we should or should not associate or extend fellowship. I view this problem much the way I think Paul viewed the problem in the Corinthian church (I Cor 1:10ff) - "I am of Paul," "I am of "Apollos," "I am of _____" - Paul viewed such statements as being fundamentally divisive for the body inasmuch as the congregation was experiencing divisions on the basis of how they viewed these men rather than viewing themselves on the basis of what Christ had done for them.
Lastly, the issue of creeds/catechisms/confessions for the purposes of defining doctrine for the theologically unlearned/uneducated: I don't claim they are necessarily wrong in what they say (though there are some things in some that I believe are) - what bothers me is that they tend to take the focus for the target audience off the Word itself and put it on their articulation of what the Word means instead. My point here is that the bible, the New Testament in particular, was written largely and almost specifically for such an [unlearned/uneducated] audience. Not everyone in the first century was as educated as Paul was, yet the NT was written by men inspired by God for the purposes of teaching/instructing a largely neophyte audience of God and His plan that they might believe in Him. The Bereans, for example, were "noble" for searching the scriptures diligently to see if what they were being taught was in fact so (Acts 17:11). It's important imho that we always direct individuals to the bible for answers - that we urge them to study for themselves, to search the scriptures on their own, that they gain their own understanding of the gospel message and be confident in their own understanding why they believe what they believe.
Too many today rely on others to tell them what the bible says when the purpose of the bible was to give them this information directly, not through some interpretive mediator. We have one mediator - Christ (I Tim 2:5) - who is the Word (John 1) and:
Upvote
0
D
Doof-Le-Moi
Guest
I'm not much of a fan of Christian rock bands either - and definitely have a difficult time listening to most Christian music radio stations - not that the music is bad per se, but I get frustrated hearing different type of song after different type of song - switching from country, to progressive, to rock, to gospel, to praise, to instrumental --- stick to one genre please!
Upvote
0
ProfessorJ
Regular Member
- Oct 30, 2006
- 183
- 7
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
While creeds may support factionalism in a way, I still find them useful to understand the beliefs of a congregation. Especially since there's no human governing body among Churches of Christ. Let's say I move to a new city and am trying to find a "home church." If they have a statement of faith listed somewhere, I can figure out if they're theologically sound or if they're a snake-handling church.
While imperfect, creeds serve a human purpose. It's just a double-edged sword, like everything else.
While imperfect, creeds serve a human purpose. It's just a double-edged sword, like everything else.
Upvote
0
If creeds say more than God's word does, then that is adding to His word, if they say less, they are taking away from His word, if they say the same, they are unnessary. You can tell if you are in the Lord;s church by comparing it with His word.
Upvote
0
AnthonyB
Disciple
In light of the humour of the OP may I add...
Creeds breed mean deeds.
Getting more serious but still slightly tongue in check...
Let us bring back creeds, not statements of faith but real creeds so we can precisely determine who is and isn't in a true follower of Jesus by words crafted by committees of church officials. Lets then get the state to enforce absolute compliance.
For me, Church history is full of the horrors of actions done in the name of creeds and no matter how sound of doctrine some of them might be, nothing will make me want to own documents drenched in the blood of fellow Christians. At the heart and core, at their very foundation, creeds have Imperial brutality, and from then on policital manipulation of great sprititual truths to the service of thoroughly un-Christlike states.
Creeds breed mean deeds.
Getting more serious but still slightly tongue in check...
Let us bring back creeds, not statements of faith but real creeds so we can precisely determine who is and isn't in a true follower of Jesus by words crafted by committees of church officials. Lets then get the state to enforce absolute compliance.
For me, Church history is full of the horrors of actions done in the name of creeds and no matter how sound of doctrine some of them might be, nothing will make me want to own documents drenched in the blood of fellow Christians. At the heart and core, at their very foundation, creeds have Imperial brutality, and from then on policital manipulation of great sprititual truths to the service of thoroughly un-Christlike states.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
sensational
Newbie
what many orthodox third century fathers taught would later be rejected or clarified during the fourth century. many take for granted the development of doctrine during the first four hundred years of Christianity due to their anachronistic views. Heresy and schism would have resulted much earlier had not the early church developed these creeds. Can you imagine the effect that would have resulted also if either the norm or rule of faith in the early church with regards to accepting the wrong authoritative episcopate church teaching would have occured. It would of been as bad as if the other norm, that is the wrong writings vs the later canonized writings would have been acknowledged by the early Christians. We can thank Athanasius that most Christians arent Arians today. Many lost their lives over the development of those teachings. Again something that is taken for granted by many today.
ps every song sounds the same by Creed but i still like em..
Upvote
0
I believe in everything Christ said. If Christ didn't say it, it's not true. That's what I go by and that's what everyone else should go by. Not the creed of men but the creed of Christ.
Upvote
0
- May 19, 2015
- 125,550
- 28,531
- 74
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Tho I tend to lean more toward that view myself, it it still difficulat for me, not only to wrap my head around, but to find out how all of Daniel, the Olivet Discouse and all of Revelation can be fulfilled.
And that is perhaps one reason I have the "Christian Seeker" faith icon, as I am always seeking out the Truth
http://www.christianforums.com/t2367396/
Full Preterism-Where is the scriptural evidence?
Upvote
0
B
bbbbbbb
Guest
Do you also believe the other things in the Bible that Christ is not quoted as saying? One of the reasons for red-letter Bibles is to permit people who only believe in Christ's words to separate them from the remainder of the text. As a result, none of the Old Testament has red letter words and many of the New Testament epistles also lack them entirely.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
