What beliefs are universally accepted across all denominations?

[Hawkins]

Apostles' Creed is about faith statements for Christians to identify a valid church possessing the power of salvation, especially in the Protestant era.

One stills need to discern which church actually embraces the Creed. Those who don't embrace can be deemed heresies. Those in controversy possibly reflect a spiritual war behind the scene, and should be avoided. Don't expect that Satan does nothing and stops exploiting and ntroducing confusion and deception. God the Holy Spirit will provide guidance for your discernment, if you are willing to listen, that is.

 

[AlexB23]

Evidently, since someone occasionally pops up doing just that.

I'd just report 'em

 

[KevinT]

Apostles' Creed is about faith statements for Christians to identify a valid church possessing the power of salvation, especially in the Protestant era.

One stills need to discern which church actually embraces the Creed. Those who don't embrace can be deemed heresies. Those in controversy possibly reflect a spiritual war behind the scene, and should be avoided. Don't expect that Satan does nothing and stops exploiting and ntroducing confusion and deception. God the Holy Spirit will provide guidance for your discernment, if you are willing to listen, that is.

The Apostle's Creed is yet another creed, different from the Nicene creed. I found an article about this here. And while I didn't read the entire article, I liked the quote I did see,

When one studies early Christian creeds, one is struck immediately by two things: how many there are and how similar they are. (underline added by KT)

In my mind, creeds from past history played the same role as do modern doctrinal position statements that various denominations put out. Creed = "What we believe".

So I don't agree that some particular creed (pick your favorite from the many choices) is the bedrock of what every rational Christian believes, and feel it is instead a doctrinal position statement put together by some committee of people I don't know. They are not inspired and are not more authoritative than any other ancient writers' thoughts.

KT

 

[Hawkins]

The Apostle's Creed is yet another creed, different from the Nicene creed. I found an article about this here. And while I didn't read the entire article, I liked the quote I did see,



In my mind, creeds from past history played the same role as do modern doctrinal position statements that various denominations put out. Creed = "What we believe".

So I don't agree that some particular creed (pick your favorite from the many choices) is the bedrock of what every rational Christian believes, and feel it is instead a doctrinal position statement put together by some committee of people I don't know. They are not inspired and are not more authoritative than any other ancient writers thoughts.

KT

It doesn't matter though. The Apostles' Creed or its variances, show a common faith statement(s) to be adapted by God's churches on earth. Unless you mean to say that there's not a standard there tangibly or intangibly. God's earthly Church itself is not definitively tangible either. God's Earthly Church however exists as a true entity and authority. I don't see a big problem there. Even the Bible itself bears the same characteristic. It's related to human capability instead of a confusion introduced by God.

Satan on the other will not stop exploiting human weaknesses whenever possible.

 

[KevinT]

It doesn't matter though. The Apostles' Creed or its variances, show a common faith statement(s) to be adapted by God's churches on earth. Unless you mean to say that there's not a standard there tangibly or intangibly. God's earthly Church itself is not definitively tangible either. God's Earthly Church however exists as a true entity and authority. I don't see a big problem there. Even the Bible itself bears the same characteristic. It's related to human capability instead of a confusion introduced by God, Satan however will not stop exploiting human weaknesses whenever possible.

What I mean is that there is vagueness in the Scriptures. If you disagree on this point we can explore further. And a creed is the attempt by modern humans to remove the vagueness and "clarify" the situation. But not everyone agrees with how the creed gets written. For example, the eastern and western catholic church split, in part, over the filioque clause (see more here). So when you say that creeds "show a common faith statement(s) to be adapted by God's churches on earth" (emphasis added), it seems that you are applying heavenly authority to them. Who says they are "to be adapted"? And when you say "God's Earthly Church however exists as a true entity and authority." Which church are you referring to? I'll assume you mean the Morman (LDS) church since you didn't specify.

Best wishes,
KT

 

[Hawkins]

What I mean is that there is vagueness in the Scriptures. If you disagree on this point we can explore further. And a creed is the attempt by modern humans to remove the vagueness and "clarify" the situation. But not everyone agrees with how the creed gets written. For example, the eastern and western catholic church split, in part, over the filioque clause (see more here). So when you say that creeds "show a common faith statement(s) to be adapted by God's churches on earth" (emphasis added), it seems that you are applying heavenly authority to them. Who says they are "to be adapted"? And when you say "God's Earthly Church however exists as a true entity and authority." Which church are you referring to? I'll assume you mean the Morman (LDS) church since you didn't specify.

Best wishes,
KT

It seems to me you chose to ignore God's effort behind the scene. You are right only when no God exists so everything is from humans. God is in control, through the validity of human capability with Satan countering it. That's the situation of every standard to be introduced.

Perhaps without your own awareness, your analysis is with an implicit assumption that God doesn't exist to be behind the situation but only with human efforts involved . To put it another way more explicitly, if God doesn't exist all analysis are meaningless. If God exists an analysis without the asumption of "God exists" is meaningless.

 

[KevinT]

It seems to me you chose to ignore God's effort behind the scene. You are right only when no God exists so everything is from humans. God is in control, through the validity of human capability with Satan countering it. That's the situation of every standard to be introduced.

I think you are implying that God worked behind the scenes and thus the traditional creeds have authoritative weight. The problem is that there are many many people who have written things down through history. Which of those are 100% correct?

I agree that God works behind the scenes. For example, I believe He influenced the formation of the modern Bible. But then we look at the difference between the Catholic Bible and Protestant Bibles that have removed the Apocrypha. Who had "God on their side?" Which one is correct?

Ultimately, I feel God is a rational being who appeals to our common sense. An appeal to authority is a good starting point, but it is even better when there is understanding. For example, we can stay away from coveting because we are told so by the 10 commandments. But it is even better if we understand WHY it is wrong to covet. And once I have understood the underlying principle, I resistant to going back to the simple letter of the law because it is not as flexible. Paul, after he understood that idols were really nothing, was able to understand that eating food sacrificed to them was still OK to eat -- even though the letter of the law (and the Jerusalem counsel) prohibited it. So I don't want to fall back to appeal to authority from some document with debatable inspiration, because it doesn't allow for reason or common sense. And it ended up splitting the ancient church in two -- exactly what our adversary would want.

So when I read the Apostle's creed or the Nicene creed, I think, "this is good, there are good points to consider and learn from." But until I have some evidence of God's actual authorship or inspiration, I'm going to take them as advisorial, not authoritative.

KT

 

[Hawkins]

I think you are implying that God worked behind the scenes and thus the traditional creeds have authoritative weight. The problem is that there are many many people who have written things down through history. Which of those are 100% correct?

I agree that God works behind the scenes. For example, I believe He influenced the formation of the modern Bible. But then we look at the difference between the Catholic Bible and Protestant Bibles that have removed the Apocrypha. Who had "God on their side?" Which one is correct?

Ultimately, I feel God is a rational being who appeals to our common sense. An appeal to authority is a good starting point, but it is even better when there is understanding. For example, we can stay away from coveting because we are told so by the 10 commandments. But it is even better if we understand WHY it is wrong to covet. And once I have understood the underlying principle, I resistant to going back to the simple letter of the law because it is not as flexible. Paul, after he understood that idols were really nothing, was able to understand that eating food sacrificed to them was still OK to eat -- even though the letter of the law (and the Jerusalem counsel) prohibited it. So I don't want to fall back to appeal to authority from some document with debatable inspiration, because it doesn't allow for reason or common sense. And it ended up splitting the ancient church in two -- exactly what our adversary would want.

So when I read the Apostle's creed or the Nicene creed, I think, "this is good, there are good points to consider and learn from." But until I have some evidence of God's actual authorship or inspiration, I'm going to take them as advisorial, not authoritative.

KT

It is the same fallacious reasoning. Any analysis under the preassumption that God doesn't exist, will not deliver an answer in the situation where God exists.

So your advocate here is that a Creed cannot exist as a standard?

In contrary, it's never a big problem for today's churches to reckon the core of this, whether they embrace it is another issue. Possibly it works in the opposite way as you presume. Jews are trained generation by generation. Christianity was created as an ad hoc when the Jews failed its job. Bible is crafted by the various groups of Chrsitians with different motives, more importantly perspectives (say making the content easier to read by uneducated people), different human resources and etc. This is referred to as human capability in general. The more human effort involved, actually means the more accurate the theological content can be, say for you the read the different perspectives to get to the correct answer. Today's Christians by their sense, deem NIV, KJV and etc. translations as more authenticative for a reason. By and large, there's not a critical theological difference between those translations.

Would you compare another human history book written 2000 more years ago with the same consistency? Chinese are said to be having a history of 5000 years. You can read through it to tell what human capability is in terms of consistency. Such an history went through a lot of hands as well, as humans delivered it through generations. The inconsistency however won't write off Chinese history as a whole, though different books are categorized as more authenticative or less authenticative. It means Chinese history has a "Canon" too, called "Canonical history". It is a necessity of how history should be conveyed through the incapable humans. You can easily find inconsistency within the the "Canonical history" itself, not to mention the books categorized as non-canonical.

The Bible is far consistent almost in all aspects especially in terms of its theological consistency, and for a reason perhaps for you to figure out. It is possibly a result of human efforts and resources put which appeared to be "many hands". As for the OT, you can actually reconcile the content with the Red Sea Scrolls written 2000 more years ago. Original Chinese history was written in bamboo pieces and nothing is reconcilable, as another human incapability. As for NT, it is written as a result of fast growth of Christianity in the first and later centuries leaving behind mass of ancient scrolls, and for the various groups of Christians to "recompose" the theological content as guided by the Holy Spirit, and resulted into the various authenticative translations as deemed by today's Christians. The theological consitency actually shows how human incapability is overcome.

I don't see how the variances of creeds hinder the standard embedded in the following, it's the core faith statement(s) adapted by today's churches.

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic* church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

*that is, the true Christian church of all times and all places

 

[KevinT]

It is the same fallacious reasoning.

"Fallacious" is an inflammatory term:

fallacious /fə-lā′shəs/

adjective​

1. Containing or based on a fallacy.
   "a fallacious assumption."
   
   
2. Tending to mislead; deceptive.
   "fallacious testimony."
   
   
3. Embodying or pertaining to a fallacy; illogical; fitted to deceive; misleading; delusive.
   "fallacious arguments or reasoning"
   Similar: illogical misleading delusive
4. Characterized by fallacy; false or mistaken.
   
   
5. Deceptive or misleading.
   
   
6. Intended to deceive.
   "fallacious testimony"
   
   
7. Based on an incorrect or misleading notion or information.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

I can assure you that I am not writing with an intent or mislead. Furthermore, other than labeling it as fallacious, you did not provide any example of where my logic was incorrect. This feels like an ad-hominem attack

Any analysis under the preassumption that God doesn't exist, will not deliver an answer in the situation where God exists.

Where did you get that I was providing an analysis with an assumption that God does not exist? I wrote:

KevinT:

I agree that God works behind the scenes.

So your advocate here is that a Creed cannot exist as a standard?

I don't understand your use of the word "advocate." To my understanding, when "advocate" is used as a noun, it is a person. I Perhaps you meant "So you ARE ADVOCATING here is that a Creed cannot exist as a standard?" looked up the definition as below.

advocate /ăd′və-kāt″/

intransitive verb​

1. To speak, plead, or argue in favor of: synonym: support.
   "advocate a vegan diet."
   Similar: support
2. To act as an advocate.
   "advocated for more stringent crime laws."
3. To act as advocate.

noun​

1. One that argues for a cause; a supporter or defender.
   "an advocate of civil rights."
2. One that pleads in another's behalf; an intercessor.
   "advocates for abused children and spouses."
3. A lawyer.
4. One who pleads the cause of another. Specifically: One who pleads the cause of another before a tribunal or judicial court; a counselor.
   Similar: counselor
5. One who defends, vindicates, or espouses any cause by argument; a pleader.
   "an advocate of free trade, an advocate of truth"
   Similar: pleader

transitive verb​

1. To plead in favor of; to defend by argument, before a tribunal or the public; to support, vindicate, or recommend publicly.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

So your advocate here is that a Creed cannot exist as a standard?

You are trying to put words in my mouth. I never said anything about if a creed COULD exist as a standard. In fact, I can think of several situations where a creed could be used as a standard:

• God Himself gives a short list of items to be remembered -- for example the 10 commandments.
• God sends a vision to a verified prophet with a message that a particular creed should be adopted by all
• Jesus specified that a particular creed should be followed

But short of that, if the Bible, which is closer to the source of truth, doesn't contain a creed, then I current would say that a creed SHOULD not be used as a standard. Notice the difference between COULD and SHOULD.

In contrary, it's never a big problem for today's churches to reckon the core of this, whether they embrace it is another issue. Possibly it works in the opposite way as you presume. Jews are trained generation by generation. Christianity was created as an ad hoc when the Jews failed its job. Bible is crafted by the various groups of Chrsitians with different motives, more importantly perspectives (say making the content easier to read by uneducated people), different human resources and etc. This is referred to as human capability in general. The more human effort involved, actually means the more accurate the theological content can be, say for you the read the different perspectives to get to the correct answer. Today's Christians by their sense, deem NIV, KJV and etc. translations as more authenticative for a reason. By and large, there's not a critical theological difference between those translations.

Agreed.

Would you compare another human history book written 2000 more years ago with the same consistency? Chinese are said to be having a history of 5000 years. You can read through it to tell what human capability is in terms of consistency. Such an history went through a lot of hands as well, as humans delivered it through generations. The inconsistency however won't write off Chinese history as a whole, though different books are categorized as more authenticative or less authenticative. It means Chinese history has a "Canon" too, called "Canonical history". It is a necessity of how history should be conveyed through the incapable humans. You can easily find inconsistency within the the "Canonical history" itself, not to mention the books categorized as non-canonical.

OK. I think you are saying that Chinese historical documents don't show the same level of accuracy as sources used in the Bible. I'm not personally sure, but I won't disagree.

The Bible is far consistent almost in all aspects especially in terms of its theological consistency, and for a reason perhaps for you to figure out. It is possibly a result of human efforts and resources put which appeared to be "many hands". As for the OT, you can actually reconcile the content with the Red Sea Scrolls written 2000 more years ago. Original Chinese history was written in bamboo pieces and nothing is reconcilable, as another human incapability. As for NT, it is written as a result of fast growth of Christianity in the first and later centuries leaving behind mass of ancient scrolls, and for the various groups of Christians to "recompose" the theological content as guided by the Holy Spirit, and resulted into the various authenticative translations as deemed by today's Christians. The theological consitency actually shows how human incapability is overcome.

I think you are saying that God had a hand in guiding the formation of the scriptures. If so, I agree. I wrote that in a former post.

I don't see how the variances of creeds hinder the standard embedded in the following, it's the core faith statement(s) adapted by today's churches.

Here is where I feel your logic falls apart. You were showing how the scriptures seemed to have been carefully preserved through time, with a degree of accuracy that exceeds that found in Chinese historical documents. And then you jump to support of a particular Creed. But there is nothing in former that extends to the later. Essentially, I hear you saying, "God supported the scriptures, therefore God also supported the Creeds." That may be true, but you have not given evidence of that. Could I not use the same chain of reasoning to say that, for example, the Gospel of Thomas (a NON-cannonical gnostic gospel) is good. E.g. "God supported scriptures, therefore God also supported the Gospel of Thomas." (I DONT think this, I'm using it as a glaring counter-example).

And having variation of creeds, by itself, would not hinder one of them being adopted by human church leaders. But the fact that there are so many shows to me that not everyone agreed even at the time. Again, disagreement about creeds led to the split of the unified catholic church into the slightly-less catholic church of the east and west. So to now, in 2024, say that one of these particular creeds is somehow akin to scriptures is not justified.

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic* church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

*that is, the true Christian church of all times and all places

I am not opposed to the above creed. It seems overall good. If you give me a few minutes, I could come up with one I agree more with. I might leave out the details about Pontius Pilate. Seems a bit unfair to pick Pilate out instead of, say, Annas the High Priest or Judas his disciple

I disagree with the part about Jesus going to Hell (i.e. the lake of fire that is described in the Bible to come AFTER the 2nd coming). More about that here and here.

And what is meant by "the communion of saints"? I found this site that states:

The Communion of the Saints is a topic that is seldom understood or taught in the Christian church. Most people think it means taking the “Lord’s Supper” which is the ritual or sacrament held as a memorial of Christ’s death. This, however, is very far from the truth.

So now the creed, which was supposed to be a condensation of many concepts into a brief litany has intruded even more opportunity for varying interpretation.

This creed, and any other creed makes assumptions about underlying beliefs. Pick any arbitrary denomination and look at their statement of beliefs. You will likely agree with 90% of what is written there. Do you want them to be somehow turned into Canon Truth? If so, what about the 10% that you think is not correct? Would you have opportunity to think about things for yourself?

If you are given the choice between the Bible, or the Cliff Notes for the Bible, which would you recommend? I'll pick the Bible every time.

KT

 

[2PhiloVoid]

From what I see.

1. There is 1 God
2. Jesus being God in the flesh
3. The Trinity
4. The Bible being the word of God
5. The belief in a heaven and hell
6. Nobody is good enough to go to heaven on their own

7. God has a specially called people in the World: Christ's Church.

8. Peter and Paul have a place of authority in Christ's Church.

9. God, the Holy Spirit, resides within Christ's Church.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

From what I see.

1. There is 1 God
2. Jesus being God in the flesh
3. The Trinity
4. The Bible being the word of God
5. The belief in a heaven and hell
6. Nobody is good enough to go to heaven on their own

Upon reviewing your list, item #4 might be subject to doubt by many Protestants, while #5 is dismissed by advocates of soul sleep and annihilationism. Items #1, #2, and #3 should be universally acknowledged by those in the Christian Forums who identify as Christians, whereas #6 appears to be somewhat ambiguous.

 

[Paleouss]

From what I see.

1. There is 1 God
2. Jesus being God in the flesh
3. The Trinity
4. The Bible being the word of God
5. The belief in a heaven and hell
6. Nobody is good enough to go to heaven on their own

1. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is THE God over all.
2. Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God come as redeemer.

If you don't believe these two... then I would not consider you Christian. I can work with any other disagreements. Might not hang with you or agree on other things, but I can work with you.

Keep chasing God's wisdom as if it were hidden treasure.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Upon reviewing your list, item #4 might be subject to doubt by many Protestants, while #5 is dismissed by advocates of soul sleep and annihilationism. Items #1, #2, and #3 should be universally acknowledged by those in the Christian Forums who identify as Christians, whereas #6 appears to be somewhat ambiguous.

I haven't met any Protestant Christians who've doubted #4 and who have decided to remain clearly Christian.

Whatever the translated nomenclature may be regarding #5, we can all agree [at the very least] that the original texts of the New Testament have referred to Gehenna, Tartarus and Hades. Obviously, Catholics and Orthodox have additional eschatological entities to consider.

#6 should, at the least, imply that we are all fallen and in need of mercy, grace and forgiveness in Christ for our sins. So, here too, there should be some minimal agreement rather than clear divergence.

 

[Lukaris]

1 Timothy 3:16

 

[Hawkins]

"Fallacious" is an inflammatory term:



I can assure you that I am not writing with an intent or mislead. Furthermore, other than labeling it as fallacious, you did not provide any example of where my logic was incorrect. This feels like an ad-hominem attack



Where did you get that I was providing an analysis with an assumption that God does not exist? I wrote:





I don't understand your use of the word "advocate." To my understanding, when "advocate" is used as a noun, it is a person. I Perhaps you meant "So you ARE ADVOCATING here is that a Creed cannot exist as a standard?" looked up the definition as below.





You are trying to put words in my mouth. I never said anything about if a creed COULD exist as a standard. In fact, I can think of several situations where a creed could be used as a standard:

• God Himself gives a short list of items to be remembered -- for example the 10 commandments.
• God sends a vision to a verified prophet with a message that a particular creed should be adopted by all
• Jesus specified that a particular creed should be followed

But short of that, if the Bible, which is closer to the source of truth, doesn't contain a creed, then I current would say that a creed SHOULD not be used as a standard. Notice the difference between COULD and SHOULD.



Agreed.


OK. I think you are saying that Chinese historical documents don't show the same level of accuracy as sources used in the Bible. I'm not personally sure, but I won't disagree.



I think you are saying that God had a hand in guiding the formation of the scriptures. If so, I agree. I wrote that in a former post.



Here is where I feel your logic falls apart. You were showing how the scriptures seemed to have been carefully preserved through time, with a degree of accuracy that exceeds that found in Chinese historical documents. And then you jump to support of a particular Creed. But there is nothing in former that extends to the later. Essentially, I hear you saying, "God supported the scriptures, therefore God also supported the Creeds." That may be true, but you have not given evidence of that. Could I not use the same chain of reasoning to say that, for example, the Gospel of Thomas (a NON-cannonical gnostic gospel) is good. E.g. "God supported scriptures, therefore God also supported the Gospel of Thomas." (I DONT think this, I'm using it as a glaring counter-example).

And having variation of creeds, by itself, would not hinder one of them being adopted by human church leaders. But the fact that there are so many shows to me that not everyone agreed even at the time. Again, disagreement about creeds led to the split of the unified catholic church into the slightly-less catholic church of the east and west. So to now, in 2024, say that one of these particular creeds is somehow akin to scriptures is not justified.



I am not opposed to the above creed. It seems overall good. If you give me a few minutes, I could come up with one I agree more with. I might leave out the details about Pontius Pilate. Seems a bit unfair to pick Pilate out instead of, say, Annas the High Priest or Judas his disciple

I disagree with the part about Jesus going to Hell (i.e. the lake of fire that is described in the Bible to come AFTER the 2nd coming). More about that here and here.

And what is meant by "the communion of saints"? I found this site that states:



So now the creed, which was supposed to be a condensation of many concepts into a brief litany has intruded even more opportunity for varying interpretation.

This creed, and any other creed makes assumptions about underlying beliefs. Pick any arbitrary denomination and look at their statement of beliefs. You will likely agree with 90% of what is written there. Do you want them to be somehow turned into Canon Truth? If so, what about the 10% that you think is not correct? Would you have opportunity to think about things for yourself?

If you are given the choice between the Bible, or the Cliff Notes for the Bible, which would you recommend? I'll pick the Bible every time.

KT

You sound as if you have no more question.

The Bible is an established standard, as well as the Apostles Creed, disregarding you reckon them as standards or not. What matters is the Heavenly court reckons them as a standard with validity from the guidance of God and with the best effort from the incapable humans (whether you reckon them as 'many hands' or not).

As long as they are a standard (reckoned by the court of Heaven), humans can now be judged legitimately. That's the point.

The question itself is simple, are they standard or not.

If yes then humans will be judged accordingly and legitimately, by an open standard pre-specified.

It doesn't matter whether you refer to it as 90% or not, the end result is that it is a standard with maximum human capability and is thus a valid testimony in a court. An example is, an eyewitness said that the crime happened at 3:10 pm, another said that it's 3:15 pm. Both testimonies will be deemed valid in the court as long as the description is within human capability. In contrary, if both eyewitnesses said that the crime was sharp at 3:15:150 milliseconds, though you may consider them 100% consistent, they may be rejected due to the fact that they don't lie within human capability! if 10 or 100 eyewitnesses all said that it's sharp at 3:15:150 (i.e., with accuracy down to milliseconds) very much consistently, the more that the testimony is invlaid. Get a clue!

By this token of human incapability the Bible actually has the effect of,

Matthew 25:29
For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.

The Bible is a valid account of testimony (deemed by the court of Heaven, by the best human effort as guided by God but countered by Satan) serving one the many purposes of distinguishing the saved from the unsaved.

What you said is an ideal unachievable by humans (i.e., by taking God, Satan and human capability into consideration), more or less like the "down to millisecond situation"!

 

[BNR32FAN]

From what I see.

1. There is 1 God
2. Jesus being God in the flesh
3. The Trinity
4. The Bible being the word of God
5. The belief in a heaven and hell
6. Nobody is good enough to go to heaven on their own

I guess it depends on what you consider a denomination of Christianity. Jehovah’s Witnesses would disagree on points 1, 2 & 3.

 

[KevinT]

The Bible is a valid account of testimony (deemed by the court of Heaven, by the best human effort as guided by God but countered by Satan) serving one the many purposes of distinguishing the saved from the unsaved.

What you said is an ideal unachievable by humans (i.e., by taking God, Satan and human capability into consideration), more or less like the "down to millisecond situation"!

@Hawkins, I have enjoyed this exchange. I appreciate the time and effort you have put into your responses to me. Looking back at my posts, I think I became a bit too wrapped up in this topic and my tongue was a bit too sharp. I have to remember that my goal is to expose myself to people with differing views -- people who love God and want to follow His guidance just as much as I do. So I apologize for any offense I may have caused. Let's agree to disagree and keep talking on other points in the future.

Best wishes,

KT

 

[David Lamb]

I know Baptists (not sure if it's just some or all of them) who do not use Creeds at all

I don't know of any baptist churches that recite a creed in their services like Anglicans do, but most if not all baptist beliefs would agree with, for example, the Apostles' Creed.

 

[KevinT]

I don't know of any baptist churches that recite a creed in their services like Anglicans do, but most if not all baptist beliefs would agree with, for example, the Apostles' Creed.

Not related to Baptist, but I found this article supporting the use of the Apostle's creed in Reformed churches.

KT