Some of the best NT verses threatening loss of salvation

[GodsGrace]

yes that is exactly what is being done.. the osas doctrine if lived right is no other different from any other.. when it was introduced it is of my understanding that is was never to be used for reason to live in and sin... having said that the Bible does not say osas/ eternal security nor does in it explicitly save one can lose there salvation.. what it does say is for us to walk worthy .. the Bible does say there is a highway of holiness "A highway will be there, a roadway, and it will be called the Highway of Holiness…it will be for him who walks that way, and fools will not wander on it." or the esv
And a highway shall be there,

and it shall be called the Way of Holiness;

the unclean shall not pass over it.

It shall belong to those who walk on the way;

even if they are fools, they shall not go astray. Isiah 35:8

paul writes about the works of the flesh in Corinthians and Galatians. Corinthians he end such as you were . Galatians he says shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven .

there are many doctrines based upon this scriptures / peter write kept by the power of God . jude says he is able to keep us from falling.. how sad we just cant agree on scriptures that tells us how we are to conduct ourselves . that is a full time job...
my last point where is the ministry of reconciliation ? restoration ? were to busy brow beating instead of trying to bring the one back that strayed from the fold .. btw i dont preach either way i preach a know so salvation . let him who has ears hear what the spirit has to say .. in the old c.b radio days we called out for a person asking got your ears on?

Ezra,
You talk about bringing one back above.
How about trying to get them not to leave in the first place?

And I agree with the scriptures, of course...
We are kept by the power of God.
He will keep us from falling...
etc.

This is all true,,IF we are IN CHRIST.
We seem to overlook what is written.
If we remain in Christ our soul is safe.
He cannot help us IF HE is not with us.

 

[GodsGrace]

here is a challenge show me a scripture that has the words lose your salvation. and there is no scripture that says even if we revert back you will still go to heaven .its one word were haggling over called interpretation

There is no scripture that says that if we revert back we will still go to heaven. You're right. But this is what the OSAS believers often say.

Would you like to read what I just read someone say?

Those on the narrow path, however, know the truth of who they are and why they are not called to follow a model of good behaviour to earn salvation (like other world religions aspiring to be like their master) but those on the narrow path are in Jesus and Jesus is in them.

The above is a girl I've known for about a year. She insists that we are not required to do good works because it would be glorifying ourselves instead of God. She's a believer of OSAS and has arrived at believing Jesus will save her with no effort on her part. In fact, she thinks that's prideful.

Paul wrote a lot about how we are to behave...in every letter he wrote. Jesus taught this. Why? So that we could learn to follow Jesus and save our souls.

As far as scripture that says we could be lost...
There's a lot of scripture that states this.

The Prodigal Son would be one.
He was saved and a son of his father...
He became lost....
Then he was saved again.

Luke 15:24
24for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.’ And they began to celebrate.


The son was dead and came back to life.
He was lost and had been found again.

 

[Christ_empowered]

-sigh- this is terribly contentious material we're dealing with, here, right now...yet again.


"ye shall know a tree by the fruit it bears." OK. so, I take that to mean denominations and also hermeneutics, philosophies, etc. because..-ideas have consequences-. here goes...

the osas ppl are in the majority where i live. the southern baptists often mingle and chit chat with Pentecostals--hence, "bapti-costal," get it?--even tho they clearly have different views of salvation. SBC is usually osas...but they do have Calvinists in the SBC, too, so their "OSAS" is not the osas of say a prayer, you're in it to win it, kiddo! and then...

as much as -love- many Pentecostals as individuals, I'm not signing up to join one of their churches anytime soon. here's the thing...

"work out your salvation with fear and trembling..." is something the Pentecostals often take seriously. so do i, in my better moments. what i didn't know, until i took a history class...

The 1st Great Awakening in colonial America had a distinctly Calvinist flavor. Ministers, such as Jonathan Edwards, would observe congregants for outward proof of genuine conversion. The "take" on Christianity back then (if one was neither Catholic nor Quaker, that is...) was -decidedly- Calvinist. To be converted meant that The Holy Ghost had moved upon an individual and brought about regeneration, saving faith, eventually produced fruit, etc. and then...

in the mid-19th century....the 2nd Great Awakening hit, and US Christianity has never been the same. Men of God at that point in time developed techniques to encourage "a decision for Christ," etc. Problem?

While I'm not a dedicated Calvinist, the 1st approach focused on God, His sovereignty, His power, His mercy and grace...in the lives of those previously hopelessly trapped in sin, etc. OK. The genuine conversions would not fall away and stay away (no way, Jose), and so the "perseverance of the saints" became part of the litmus test, if you will.

The 2nd Great Awakening kind of democratized Christianity. Anyone can be saved, anyone can be redeemed...

which is awesome, and I think one can argue for some Scriptural support for some of it, but...

what happened then and is happening now, sadly, is really the application of psychological techniques to what is not only spiritual, but really sacred: God's work in redeeming sinners.

kinda rambling. My point here is that I think when one argues for the "hyper-grace" (as some have called it...) approach that seems to flourish in megachurches, what I see is sort of....the bratty great-grandchild of the 2nd Great Awakening.

I don't have a firm view of salvation, except I want mine, now and in the years to come and most definitely in the world to come. I don't really believe in the osas that so many do around here, because...I personally do believe in false conversions and I think there's Scriptural support for that belief.

I've also (sigh...) come to reject a lot of Pentecostalism, not because I don't believe miralces still happen (I firmly believe they do) or because I believe I can say a prayer and be done (doubt it....that's more like chanting spells than pursuing Christ, I think...), but because...

I see a lot of positive thinking-type psychology going on in both mainstream megachurches and Pentecostal churches, plus a lot of non-Biblical -stuff- that does more to prop up the status quo than it does to disciple the faithful or reach those in darkness. The big thing, though, is that Pentecostals almost seem to think that salvation is a matter of developing an iron will. no sodomy, no drugs, no suicide, no extramarital hanky panky, sho nuff no voting Democrat....

because "you'll lose your salvation." And yet...

do -not- test The Lord, thy God. so, I'm not gung ho about Calvinism, either, and much like the rest of established Christendom, they seem to be having their "problems" with the 21st century, too. :-(

ok. rambling, as always. if you made it this far...--hugs-- and --thank you--

 

[Walpole]

You think Judas Iscariot was saved?
He betrayed Jesus, he stole the money.
Then he killed himself.
You think that is an example of a Christian.
Are you a calvinist?

https://christianforums.net/Fellows...-loss-of-salvation.78363/page-19#post-1501440

 

[Walpole]

First,,,how do you know what I believe??

Did you forget writing this? ---> https://christianforums.net/Fellows...people-celebrate-it.74556/page-2#post-1432723

There's nothing in the Nicene Creed with which I do not agree.
There is nothing there that is contrary to what I believe.

They say not to assume, but you sure sound Catholic. So do you think I don't agree with anything the CC teaches? It teaches a lot of good concepts that could even help to understand the bible better.

I must say that I find the bible easier to understand than the CCC,,, but I tell everyone they should read the first hundred paragraphs or so --- it's great!

Do you disagree with everything protestants believe?
If they had a creed all their own and it was full of the truth...wouldn't you be willing to accept it?

Let me try to make my point again. The Nicene Creed was composed by Catholic bishops defending the faith of the Catholic Church. Here is St. Athanasius again, the great defender of the Catholic faith, describing how the faith of the Church is passed down through succession and it is this faith the Church proclaimed at the Council...

"See, we are proving that this view has been transmitted from father to father; but you, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, how many fathers can you assign to your phrases? Not one of the understanding and wise; for all abhor you, but the devil alone ; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning sowed you with the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council [Nicea], for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word have handed down to us. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy; and this is a chief reason why these apply themselves to calumniate the Council. For it is not the terms which trouble them, but that those terms prove them to be heretics, and presumptuous beyond other heresies." - St. Athanasius, De Decretis, VI, 27

Now here is my point: Why would Protestants accept the Creed of the Church it rejects? The very Church described by the words of the Creed is what Protestants positively reject. Thus, to use my previous analogy, it would be like me using a Mormon Creed or Statement of Faith to affirm my own beliefs, despite the fact that the Catholic religion is incompatible with the Mormon religion.

Am I making sense? Do you see my puzzlement?

 

[GodsGrace]

Did you forget writing this? ---> https://christianforums.net/Fellows...people-celebrate-it.74556/page-2#post-1432723




Let me try to make my point again. The Nicene Creed was composed by Catholic bishops defending the faith of the Catholic Church. Here is St. Athanasius again, the great defender of the Catholic faith, describing how the faith of the Church is passed down through succession and it is this faith the Church proclaimed at the Council...

"See, we are proving that this view has been transmitted from father to father; but you, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, how many fathers can you assign to your phrases? Not one of the understanding and wise; for all abhor you, but the devil alone ; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning sowed you with the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council [Nicea], for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word have handed down to us. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy; and this is a chief reason why these apply themselves to calumniate the Council. For it is not the terms which trouble them, but that those terms prove them to be heretics, and presumptuous beyond other heresies." - St. Athanasius, De Decretis, VI, 27

Now here is my point: Why would Protestants accept the Creed of the Church it rejects? The very Church described by the words of the Creed is what Protestants positively reject. Thus, to use my previous analogy, it would be like me using a Mormon Creed or Statement of Faith to affirm my own beliefs, despite the fact that the Catholic religion is incompatible with the Mormon religion.

Am I making sense? Do you see my puzzlement?

Hi W,
I didn't know you read that.
It doesn't tell the whole story, does it?

There's orthodoxy in a religion and there's heresy always present. If a creed declares nothing but the orthodoxy of that religion...why should it be denied or unacceptable?

Some Protestant churches actually recite the Creed, with slight modifications (which the CC has also made) at their service every Sunday. Not evangelical or independent churches.

Maybe I'm not understanding your point because I don't dislike the CC like some do,,,for what reason I still don't understand.

Maybe the churches who DO repeat it on Sundays do so because THEY haven't been able to come up with something better?

IOW, what you're saying is that at the reformation a different creed should have been written,,,one in keeping with those beliefs.

There are confessions...like the Westminster Confession of Faith but it's not like the Creeds of the CC.

I can't really think of another church that has done this...
Maybe because the CC was forced to back then. It had to take a stand on Jesus being Divine. Persons that don't appreciate the CC don't know their history. There's all the bad stuff too...and I'm very sorry about this.

 

[Walpole]

I like the story of Adam and Eve...always learning something new from it. What you say above is great. I always knew that God was trying to make Adam aware of his disobedience, but He was also trying to get him to confess...which awareness does bring confession I'd say.
Thanks for that.

This theme continues all throughout salvation history. God repeatedly seeks confessions from man.

I mentioned this before in another thread, but the first the thing prodigal son does upon returning to the bosom of the Father is he makes a confession. (cf. Luke 15:21) Jesus is telling us this for a reason.

I guess we could say that God gave man His spirit the first time with Adam and Jesus gave man God's spirit the second time.

Or we could say God first breathed life into the first man and then breathes the power to restore life to redeemed man.

I do have a problem with confession the way the CC understands it. Even priests say that it's not them that are forgiving the sin...but God. They are just declaring that (based on the penitent) the sins are forgiven. I don't understand why it needs to be declared by a priest.

Also, I know this is dumb, but I fail to see why I should confess my sins to another man who sins himself, and, in some cases, his sins DO outweigh mine on the grounds of venial and mortal. On these grounds only...I believe we are all sinning and need God's forgiveness. I know the priest is taking the place of Jesus in the confessional.

It's important to remember, throughout salvation history, God has always used man; first to convey his message and his teachings. This act of using man to convey His message culminates when God entered into His creation by becoming Man. By virtue of the Incarnation, God now continues to use man to convey not only His message, but now His grace. We see this when Jesus gives man the power to forgive sins in his name in that upper room on Easter Sunday night.

It is important to remember that the Church is an extension of the Incarnation.

I wish the early fathers said more about this.

They do...simply Google "Church Fathers on Confession." If you still can't find anything, let me know and I'll post links.

I know about apostolic succession but I'm not sure Jesus intended to pass HIS authority on to those that came after the Apostles....

Scripture records the Apostles appointing successors.

At Mass at the Penetential Rite all venial sins are forgiven without having to hear them individually. In some places, abortion had to be forgiven by a Bishop (no longer true - didn't you just know the Pope would extend it to past the year?) I also fail to understand why some sins can be forgiven by God and some need a priest.

All sins are forgiven by God. (The penitential rite is itself a confession.)

Some of the scripture you posted does not seem to me to be speaking of confession the way the CC understands it.
1 John 1:9 sounds close to it...but even that could be debated. It seems to me that if confession were that important, it would have been declared more clearly.

There is only one way it is practiced, and that is only by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which are the only ones with pedigrees going all the way back to the Apostles. No other church practices it the way the CC (and EO) understand it.

It's importance is clear by the fact that it is recorded in Scripture and practiced from the beginning of Christianity to today.

I try not to read encyclicals anymore. I used to have to.
I know the Didache....could you post anything from the ECF regarding communion? I can't find much.

I could post pages upon pages of ECF writings on communion. It was one of the favorite themes of many of the Fathers. Simply Google "Communion and the Church Fathers". If that doesn't help you, let me know and I will post links.

 

[GodsGrace]

This theme continues all throughout salvation history. God repeatedly seeks confessions from man.

I mentioned this before in another thread, but the first the thing prodigal son does upon returning to the bosom of the Father is he makes a confession. (cf. Luke 15:21) Jesus is telling us this for a reason.




Or we could say God first breathed life into the first man and then breathes the power to restore life to redeemed man.



It's important to remember, throughout salvation history, God has always used man; first to convey his message and his teachings. This act of using man to convey His message culminates when God entered into His creation by becoming Man. By virtue of the Incarnation, God now continues to use man to convey not only His message, but now His grace. We see this when Jesus gives man the power to forgive sins in his name in that upper room on Easter Sunday night.

It is important to remember that the Church is an extension of the Incarnation.




They do...simply Google "Church Fathers on Confession." If you still can't find anything, let me know and I'll post links.




Scripture records the Apostles appointing successors.




All sins are forgiven by God. (The penitential rite is itself a confession.)



There is only one way it is practiced, and that is only by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which are the only ones with pedigrees going all the way back to the Apostles. No other church practices it the way the CC (and EO) understand it.

It's importance is clear by the fact that it is recorded in Scripture and practiced from the beginning of Christianity to today.




I could post pages upon pages of ECF writings on communion. It was one of the favorite themes of many of the Fathers. Simply Google "Communion and the Church Fathers". If that doesn't help you, let me know and I will post links.

Thanks W...
You're very knowledgeable and a deep thinker. I really appreciate this.

I still haven't quite been able to understand how the Church is an extension of the incarnation...

And also I can't put together the Mass and the Eucharist. The problem is that I need to understand everything...it could be a curse. Sometimes I get flashes of lucidity, but they disappear as quickly as the came. But when I get one...it's like being in heaven!

Do you think the Last Supper was the first Mass or or the meal with the two Jesus met on the Road to Emmaus?

P.S. Yes,,, I'll be googling that info re the ECFs.

 

[GodsGrace]

This theme continues all throughout salvation history. God repeatedly seeks confessions from man.

I mentioned this before in another thread, but the first the thing prodigal son does upon returning to the bosom of the Father is he makes a confession. (cf. Luke 15:21) Jesus is telling us this for a reason.




Or we could say God first breathed life into the first man and then breathes the power to restore life to redeemed man.



It's important to remember, throughout salvation history, God has always used man; first to convey his message and his teachings. This act of using man to convey His message culminates when God entered into His creation by becoming Man. By virtue of the Incarnation, God now continues to use man to convey not only His message, but now His grace. We see this when Jesus gives man the power to forgive sins in his name in that upper room on Easter Sunday night.

It is important to remember that the Church is an extension of the Incarnation.




They do...simply Google "Church Fathers on Confession." If you still can't find anything, let me know and I'll post links.




Scripture records the Apostles appointing successors.




All sins are forgiven by God. (The penitential rite is itself a confession.)



There is only one way it is practiced, and that is only by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which are the only ones with pedigrees going all the way back to the Apostles. No other church practices it the way the CC (and EO) understand it.

It's importance is clear by the fact that it is recorded in Scripture and practiced from the beginning of Christianity to today.

I could post pages upon pages of ECF writings on communion. It was one of the favorite themes of many of the Fathers. Simply Google "Communion and the Church Fathers". If that doesn't help you, let me know and I will post links.

I did want to say that if I remember correctly, I do believe in the Orthodox church confession is voluntary and not really needed.

 

[MarkT]

MT

Sometimes I think I'm reading a different bible....

Luke 8:13
JESUS states that they BELIEVE for a while.

What does BELIEVE mean anyway?

If one believes.....one is saved.

When one STOPS believing...
He loses that salvation which depended on believing.

You think this is wrong?

Jesus said he who endures to the end will be saved. Mt. 10:22 Mt. 24:22

This man doesn't endure. What does having a rocky heart say about his belief?

No where in the Bible does it say he who believes for a while is saved or will be saved.

You almost sound like a Calvinist.

 

[ezra]

Would you like to read what I just read someone say?

actually NO i wouldn't due to the fact i have read other stuff you posted from other post .. i dont believe that way nor do i have time for some off the wall post . i am well aware of what others believe . i have examined scriptures from both sides of the fence.... i have also told you countless times where i stand

 

[ezra]

"work out your salvation with fear and trembling..."

bingo

 

[ezra]

-sigh- this is terribly contentious material we're dealing with, here, right now...yet again.


"ye shall know a tree by the fruit it bears." OK. so, I take that to mean denominations and also hermeneutics, philosophies, etc. because..-ideas have consequences-. here goes...

the osas ppl are in the majority where i live. the southern baptists often mingle and chit chat with Pentecostals--hence, "bapti-costal," get it?--even tho they clearly have different views of salvation. SBC is usually osas...but they do have Calvinists in the SBC, too, so their "OSAS" is not the osas of say a prayer, you're in it to win it, kiddo! and then...

as much as -love- many Pentecostals as individuals, I'm not signing up to join one of their churches anytime soon. here's the thing...

"work out your salvation with fear and trembling..." is something the Pentecostals often take seriously. so do i, in my better moments. what i didn't know, until i took a history class...

The 1st Great Awakening in colonial America had a distinctly Calvinist flavor. Ministers, such as Jonathan Edwards, would observe congregants for outward proof of genuine conversion. The "take" on Christianity back then (if one was neither Catholic nor Quaker, that is...) was -decidedly- Calvinist. To be converted meant that The Holy Ghost had moved upon an individual and brought about regeneration, saving faith, eventually produced fruit, etc. and then...

in the mid-19th century....the 2nd Great Awakening hit, and US Christianity has never been the same. Men of God at that point in time developed techniques to encourage "a decision for Christ," etc. Problem?

While I'm not a dedicated Calvinist, the 1st approach focused on God, His sovereignty, His power, His mercy and grace...in the lives of those previously hopelessly trapped in sin, etc. OK. The genuine conversions would not fall away and stay away (no way, Jose), and so the "perseverance of the saints" became part of the litmus test, if you will.

The 2nd Great Awakening kind of democratized Christianity. Anyone can be saved, anyone can be redeemed...

which is awesome, and I think one can argue for some Scriptural support for some of it, but...

what happened then and is happening now, sadly, is really the application of psychological techniques to what is not only spiritual, but really sacred: God's work in redeeming sinners.

kinda rambling. My point here is that I think when one argues for the "hyper-grace" (as some have called it...) approach that seems to flourish in megachurches, what I see is sort of....the bratty great-grandchild of the 2nd Great Awakening.

I don't have a firm view of salvation, except I want mine, now and in the years to come and most definitely in the world to come. I don't really believe in the osas that so many do around here, because...I personally do believe in false conversions and I think there's Scriptural support for that belief.

I've also (sigh...) come to reject a lot of Pentecostalism, not because I don't believe miralces still happen (I firmly believe they do) or because I believe I can say a prayer and be done (doubt it....that's more like chanting spells than pursuing Christ, I think...), but because...

I see a lot of positive thinking-type psychology going on in both mainstream megachurches and Pentecostal churches, plus a lot of non-Biblical -stuff- that does more to prop up the status quo than it does to disciple the faithful or reach those in darkness. The big thing, though, is that Pentecostals almost seem to think that salvation is a matter of developing an iron will. no sodomy, no drugs, no suicide, no extramarital hanky panky, sho nuff no voting Democrat....

because "you'll lose your salvation." And yet...

do -not- test The Lord, thy God. so, I'm not gung ho about Calvinism, either, and much like the rest of established Christendom, they seem to be having their "problems" with the 21st century, too. :-(

ok. rambling, as always. if you made it this far...--hugs-- and --thank you--

there yiu go turning the world upside down lol great post

 

[Walpole]

Thanks W...
You're very knowledgeable and a deep thinker. I really appreciate this.

Hardly, as I'm but a simple worker in the vineyard.

I still haven't quite been able to understand how the Church is an extension of the incarnation...

Let me try to help.

Extension: Something that can be extended or that extends to another object

Extended: Continued or prolonged

"A man’s body is all one, though it has a number of different organs; and all this multitude of organs goes to make up one body; so it is with Christ. We too, all of us, have been baptized into a single body by the power of a single Spirit, Jews and Greeks, slaves and free men alike; we have all been given drink at a single source, the one Spirit. The body, after all, consists not of one organ but of many...And you are Christ’s body, organs of it depending upon each other..." (1 Cor 12:12-30)

Christ had a body while on earth which He used to teach and sanctify. The Church - his body - is now an extension of His body, which continues to teach and sanctify. (cf. Mt. 26:26, Mt. 28:20)

And also I can't put together the Mass and the Eucharist. The problem is that I need to understand everything...it could be a curse. Sometimes I get flashes of lucidity, but they disappear as quickly as the came. But when I get one...it's like being in heaven!

Here's the simplest explanation of the Mass and Eucharist I can think of: It is the normative means by which man has communion with God in this world (cf. 1 Cor 10:16). For it is in the Eucharist where He is truly present amongst His people; Emmanuel.

Do you think the Last Supper was the first Mass or or the meal with the two Jesus met on the Road to Emmaus?

Yes, the first Mass took place at the Last Supper, which Christ Himself calls the New Covenant (testament). The parallels between the institution narratives of the new covenant sacrifice (the Eucharist) to that of the old covenant sacrifice of Exodus 24 are not just coincidental, but rather intentional fulfillments.

P.S. Yes,,, I'll be googling that info re the ECFs.

Great!

 

[Walpole]

I did want to say that if I remember correctly, I do believe in the Orthodox church confession is voluntary and not really needed.

Well all confession is voluntary, as in one cannot be compelled.

However, I think each Church in Orthodoxy has different rules on how frequently the faithful should confess. I am not certain on that though.

 

[Walpole]

Don't Protestants also oppose Arius?
We agree on a lot of things W.

I'm trying not to miss any of the posts directed at me.

No, not all Protestants oppose Arius / Arianism. Many early heresies such as Arianism come back and are re-branded as something else. For example, ever hear of the Jehovah's Witnesses? They are neo-Arians.

Ever hear of a popular Evangelical pastor named John MacArthur? He fell into Arianism when he embraced something called "Incarnational Sonship". He has since rejected this view, but he embraced it for quite a while.

 

[Walpole]

I think scripture does an excellent job supporting an Orthodox view of Trinity to which I primarily ascribe.

Anti-Trinitarians also think the Scripture does an excellent job of supporting their position.

My point is that you cannot arrive at an orthodox Trinitarian theology or Christology via sola Scriptura. This was evidenced at Nicea.

BTW, thank you for your reply. It reminds me of the two theological schools during Jesus day. ( Hillel and Shamia). What we can learn from the Jews is their since of Identity. Although those two lines of thought were polar opposite, neither denied the other citizenship in God's kingdom. I believe this line of thought is represented in many of Paul's writings.

Great point.

 

[Walpole]

Hi W,
I didn't know you read that.
It doesn't tell the whole story, does it?

There's orthodoxy in a religion and there's heresy always present. If a creed declares nothing but the orthodoxy of that religion...why should it be denied or unacceptable?

Some Protestant churches actually recite the Creed, with slight modifications (which the CC has also made) at their service every Sunday. Not evangelical or independent churches.

Maybe I'm not understanding your point because I don't dislike the CC like some do,,,for what reason I still don't understand.

Maybe the churches who DO repeat it on Sundays do so because THEY haven't been able to come up with something better?

IOW, what you're saying is that at the reformation a different creed should have been written,,,one in keeping with those beliefs.

There are confessions...like the Westminster Confession of Faith but it's not like the Creeds of the CC.

I can't really think of another church that has done this...
Maybe because the CC was forced to back then. It had to take a stand on Jesus being Divine. Persons that don't appreciate the CC don't know their history. There's all the bad stuff too...and I'm very sorry about this.

I'll try one more time, then I'll move on. Here again is my confusion as to why Protestants recite the Nicene Creed...

The very Church described by the words of the Creed is the Church Protestants positively reject. The Nicene Creed was composed by Catholic bishops defending the faith of the Catholic Church. Using my previous analogy, it would be like me using a Mormon Creed or Statement of Faith to affirm my own beliefs, despite the fact that the Catholic religion is incompatible with the Mormon religion.

 

[MarkT]

I'll try one more time, then I'll move on. Here again is my confusion as to why Protestants recite the Nicene Creed...

The very Church described by the words of the Creed is the Church Protestants positively reject. The Nicene Creed was composed by Catholic bishops defending the faith of the Catholic Church. Using my previous analogy, it would be like me using a Mormon Creed or Statement of Faith to affirm my own beliefs, despite the fact that the Catholic religion is incompatible with the Mormon religion.

The Christian faith is faith in God the Father through Jesus Christ the Son. A Christian is a disciple of Christ.

Before we had the word of God, we had Creeds to tell us what we must believe. But now the tables have turned. Now it's our turn to test the spirits to see if they are of God.

For a long time people didn't have the Bible. But now we can examine your Creeds in the light of Christ.

Isaiah 29:13
And the Lord said: “Because this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment of men learned by rote;

Creeds are learned by rote. Creeds don't preserve. Creeds don't make alive. Creeds won't put Christ in your heart.

 

[GodsGrace]

I'll try one more time, then I'll move on. Here again is my confusion as to why Protestants recite the Nicene Creed...

The very Church described by the words of the Creed is the Church Protestants positively reject. The Nicene Creed was composed by Catholic bishops defending the faith of the Catholic Church. Using my previous analogy, it would be like me using a Mormon Creed or Statement of Faith to affirm my own beliefs, despite the fact that the Catholic religion is incompatible with the Mormon religion.

My last too:

Every church that is CHRISTIAN MUST believe in the Nicene Creed...otherwise it is NOT Christian.

Catholic only means universal...it was the universal church then...sometimes I see universal in parenthesis.

The creed is not describing a church.....
it's describing a creed...
A credo....
Something we believe in as Christians.

It doesn't matter what church made it up....it's our faith.
If the mormons had a very good creed, we might even use that (but they wouldn't of course).

creed
/kriːd/
noun

1. a system of religious belief; a faith.
   "people of many creeds and cultures"
   synonyms:faith, religion, religious belief(s), religious persuasion, religious conviction, religious group, faith community, church; More
   
   
   
   • a formal statement of Christian beliefs, especially the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed.
     noun: Creed; noun: the Creed
     "the godparents will then swear that they believe in the Creed and the Commandments"
     synonyms:system of belief, set of principles, statement of beliefs, profession of faith; More
     
     
   • a set of beliefs or aims which guide someone's actions.
     "liberalism was more than a political creed"