The Apostles' Creed

[Mysteryman]

Hervey, this is where I understood that you were upset...

Gosh it makes my skin crawl when someone waters down history in such a manner as this.

And then you say...

I would appreciate it if you would stop guessing about my motivations, and where you think I am coming from. I am not , as you put it, "greatly upset". I am calm , cool and collected.

I'm sorry if I inferred something that wasn't there. I didn't picture you throwing anything across the room , but it seems clear that you are upset, so much that this makes your skin crawl. I don't believe you're in a rage, but you obviously feel so strongly that we should stay away from these creeds that you will not let it go until we abandon them altogether.

I took this history from a web site. You tell me if it is accurate or not, okay ?

As Joe noted, No link? I thought this was a basic ground rule here. And especially helpful if someone asks for it.

Hi Mike

You made reference to the creed and my background from denomination religion. Then you suggested that I might be upset by the creed and the stance upon which others take upon it. Knowing my background.

Mankind loves to hide behind a false wall of deception. History can reveal that there is no false wall. The persecution from within the church upon heritics is widely known and fully understood. Don't tell me you are going to brush away history now, are you ?

What makes my skin crawl, is when someone is so eager to change history, in order to try and gain an advantage of the lies they have been telling about the history of the early church. Especially around the fourth century when the many creeds became known and thrown into the arena of the legilistic time period of the church. The creed became the legal document. The legal system carried out its legalism upon the heretics that they deemed to be heretical. Action was taken in many forms , from imprisonment, to death either by burning or beheading.

 

[Free]

As per the TOS:

21 - Respect copyrighted material, if you post articles or commentaries from another source please include the author's name and a link to the original source if available.

 

[Mike]

Hi Mike

You made reference to the creed and my background from denomination religion. Then you suggested that I might be upset by the creed and the stance upon which others take upon it. Knowing my background.

Mankind loves to hide behind a false wall of deception. History can reveal that there is no false wall. The persecution from within the church upon heritics is widely known and fully understood. Don't tell me you are going to brush away history now, are you ?

What makes my skin crawl, is when someone is so eager to change history, in order to try and gain an advantage of the lies they have been telling about the history of the early church. Especially around the fourth century when the many creeds became known and thrown into the arena of the legilistic time period of the church. The creed became the legal document. The legal system carried out its legalism upon the heretics that they deemed to be heretical. Action was taken in many forms , from imprisonment, to death either by burning or beheading.

Geesh --- and here I thought the ground rules were two fold 1. Sound mind 2. Logical facts

Maybe I was expecting too much from you and others. My fault - live an learn as they say.

I am sorry if I misrepresented your passion. You do feel very strongly that Jesus was/is not in fact God. I was trying to say that I understood you came to this understanding during the course of your walk. If someone (or a group of people) was to promote that someone was God who I am sure is not, I would get very upset by them repeatedly promoting it. I suppose I was injecting how I would feel in your position on you.

Yes, there certainly is documented persecution by the church, but I don't believe this led to the creeds. How people would abuse the Word and the creeds in the centuries to come is very disturbing, but this statement of beliefs is not evil or a way of persecuting others if we simply take them for what they are.

Sorry if you feel I'm getting all legal on you in pointing to the suggested rule for including a link when you are citing information. It's just a way of cross-referencing someone's work. If you're not willing or able to cite your reference or post the link, I suppose that's that.

Be blessed,
Mike

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi Mike

You made reference to the creed and my background from denomination religion. Then you suggested that I might be upset by the creed and the stance upon which others take upon it. Knowing my background.

Mankind loves to hide behind a false wall of deception. History can reveal that there is no false wall. The persecution from within the church upon heritics is widely known and fully understood. Don't tell me you are going to brush away history now, are you ?

What makes my skin crawl, is when someone is so eager to change history, in order to try and gain an advantage of the lies they have been telling about the history of the early church. Especially around the fourth century when the many creeds became known and thrown into the arena of the legilistic time period of the church. The creed became the legal document. The legal system carried out its legalism upon the heretics that they deemed to be heretical. Action was taken in many forms , from imprisonment, to death either by burning or beheading.

Geesh --- and here I thought the ground rules were two fold 1. Sound mind 2. Logical facts

Maybe I was expecting too much from you and others. My fault - live an learn as they say.

I am sorry if I misrepresented your passion. You do feel very strongly that Jesus was/is not in fact God. I was trying to say that I understood you came to this understanding during the course of your walk. If someone (or a group of people) was to promote that someone was God who I am sure is not, I would get very upset by them repeatedly promoting it. I suppose I was injecting how I would feel in your position on you.

Yes, there certainly is documented persecution by the church, but I don't believe this led to the creeds. How people would abuse the Word and the creeds in the centuries to come is very disturbing, but this statement of beliefs is not evil or a way of persecuting others if we simply take them for what they are.

Sorry if you feel I'm getting all legal on you in pointing to the suggested rule for including a link when you are citing information. It's just a way of cross-referencing someone's work. If you're not willing or able to cite your reference or post the link, I suppose that's that.

Be blessed,
Mike

Here is the link , with permission to give out the link -- http://www.christianodyssey.com/history/apostles.htm

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi Mike

You made reference to the creed and my background from denomination religion. Then you suggested that I might be upset by the creed and the stance upon which others take upon it. Knowing my background.

Mankind loves to hide behind a false wall of deception. History can reveal that there is no false wall. The persecution from within the church upon heritics is widely known and fully understood. Don't tell me you are going to brush away history now, are you ?

What makes my skin crawl, is when someone is so eager to change history, in order to try and gain an advantage of the lies they have been telling about the history of the early church. Especially around the fourth century when the many creeds became known and thrown into the arena of the legilistic time period of the church. The creed became the legal document. The legal system carried out its legalism upon the heretics that they deemed to be heretical. Action was taken in many forms , from imprisonment, to death either by burning or beheading.

Geesh --- and here I thought the ground rules were two fold 1. Sound mind 2. Logical facts

Maybe I was expecting too much from you and others. My fault - live an learn as they say.

I am sorry if I misrepresented your passion. You do feel very strongly that Jesus was/is not in fact God. I was trying to say that I understood you came to this understanding during the course of your walk. If someone (or a group of people) was to promote that someone was God who I am sure is not, I would get very upset by them repeatedly promoting it. I suppose I was injecting how I would feel in your position on you.

Yes, there certainly is documented persecution by the church, but I don't believe this led to the creeds. How people would abuse the Word and the creeds in the centuries to come is very disturbing, but this statement of beliefs is not evil or a way of persecuting others if we simply take them for what they are.

Sorry if you feel I'm getting all legal on you in pointing to the suggested rule for including a link when you are citing information. It's just a way of cross-referencing someone's work. If you're not willing or able to cite your reference or post the link, I suppose that's that.

Be blessed,
Mike

The creeds came first. Then the persecution occured. At the time of the creeds origin, they found themesleves with no one whom they considered equal with authority of the apostles that came before them. So they established an authoritative document by which all could agree upon. Even though there were different creeds at the time. They used the creed as a refeernce piece of work, made and written by man, so as to bind all those whom they deemed as heritical. Then came the legalism and the persecution. It became a legal document, and not just a statement of faith.

But then again, a blind eye goes a long way towards needing reading glasses -

 

[chestertonrules]

chestertonrules

It reveals the basis for the authority of the Catholic Church. It was given to the Church by Jesus.

This authority includes the forgiveness of sins.

Man cannot forgive sins.......Period.........

God can give his authority to man. Man can do many miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit, including the forgiveness of sins:


John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi Mike

You made reference to the creed and my background from denomination religion. Then you suggested that I might be upset by the creed and the stance upon which others take upon it. Knowing my background.

Mankind loves to hide behind a false wall of deception. History can reveal that there is no false wall. The persecution from within the church upon heritics is widely known and fully understood. Don't tell me you are going to brush away history now, are you ?

What makes my skin crawl, is when someone is so eager to change history, in order to try and gain an advantage of the lies they have been telling about the history of the early church. Especially around the fourth century when the many creeds became known and thrown into the arena of the legilistic time period of the church. The creed became the legal document. The legal system carried out its legalism upon the heretics that they deemed to be heretical. Action was taken in many forms , from imprisonment, to death either by burning or beheading.

Geesh --- and here I thought the ground rules were two fold 1. Sound mind 2. Logical facts

Maybe I was expecting too much from you and others. My fault - live an learn as they say.

I am sorry if I misrepresented your passion. You do feel very strongly that Jesus was/is not in fact God. I was trying to say that I understood you came to this understanding during the course of your walk. If someone (or a group of people) was to promote that someone was God who I am sure is not, I would get very upset by them repeatedly promoting it. I suppose I was injecting how I would feel in your position on you.

Yes, there certainly is documented persecution by the church, but I don't believe this led to the creeds. How people would abuse the Word and the creeds in the centuries to come is very disturbing, but this statement of beliefs is not evil or a way of persecuting others if we simply take them for what they are.

Sorry if you feel I'm getting all legal on you in pointing to the suggested rule for including a link when you are citing information. It's just a way of cross-referencing someone's work. If you're not willing or able to cite your reference or post the link, I suppose that's that.

Be blessed,
Mike

Mike:

Our conversation went in the direction of how the creeds first came to be, and how they were used back then when their origin began. Not about how we feel about the creeds today, nor how one wants to look at them today. I never said that the creed itself was evil ! Nor have I implied that ! What I have been saying, is that when they originated the purpose was not to unite. The creed was used to bind, or draw together into one type of belief that the many could accept. With its very vague written form, it left a huge open door for private interpretation of the scriptures. The creed also became a binding factor towards those whom they considered heresy. And even though the creed being very vague, it was used in such a manner as to propose a certian kind of validity or authenticity with a certain amout of authority behind the interpretation of the creed. One of the reason there were more than one creed. Was because many branches of the church didn't have a good grasp of the scriptures. Plus the lack of scritpure available , especially from the NT, which only had certain writtings available, as well as the beliefs of the differing church branches. Which by the way, were showing signs of differing beliefs. The creed became adopted , not as a general rule of thumb belief. But as a legal binding way in which heretics could be rooted out. I am sure some heretics were very evil. While others were not, meaning that they were falsely classified as a heretic. The one's who were not, were seeking their God given right to search outward for the truth, beyond just hear say, and a church leader who had no buisness being a leader in the church to begin with. The lack of the autoritative figures, such as the Apostles were, left a lot to be desired from within the church. So in this case, evil became good and good evil. No matter how good you view the creeds, they were used to promote evil within the corruption of the legalism that spanned from within the church. The creed became bondage and legalism , no matter how inoccent the words which are written within the creed.

 

[Mysteryman]

Quote dadof10 : "It absolutely is. It says to the world, "here is what we believe. If you hold these doctrines you are within our fold, if you don't you aren't". ""


Hi

Exactly !! Your comment here makes my point ! The creed was used just in this manner ! Legal and binding !!

Your comments are exactly what Peter said in II Peter 2:19 - "While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption : for of whom a man is over come, of the same is he brought in bondage"

 

[jasoncran]

uh , when you make the claim to define what christianity is or is not, and write it down or state it orally, that is a creed.

 

[Mike]

Our conversation went in the direction of how the creeds first came to be, and how they were used back then when their origin began.

I never said that the creed itself was evil ! Nor have I implied that ! What I have been saying, is that when they originated the purpose was not to unite. The creed was used to bind, or draw together into one type of belief that the many could accept.

Anything that is not for Him is against Him. With all of your accusations of the ways the creed has bound people and was used to prohibit genuine faith, I would think you would have to see some sort of evil component to it. Or else, why would you feel so strongly opposed to it?

You use the word "binding" in this thread a lot. You and I live in America, and it's 2010. I don't see how this is a problem in today's church. It's not as though you have to say the secret password to get in the doors. I concede that there was a time when people would have been excommunicated for refusing to recite it, but no one's doing this today. How is the creed binding?

I thought I was very contrite in my last response, but my apology only fell on deaf ears. You even get offended when I take something back.

I'm hard pressed figure out why you feel so convicted to fight this fight. The only thing that makes any sense is that you have difference with "mere Christianity" in rejecting Jesus' Divinity and the Trinity, and it bothers you that an agreed upon statement of faith contradicts your own set of beliefs (your creed).

 

[n2thelight]

chestertonrules

It reveals the basis for the authority of the Catholic Church. It was given to the Church by Jesus.

This authority includes the forgiveness of sins.

Man cannot forgive sins.......Period.........

God can give his authority to man. Man can do many miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit, including the forgiveness of sins:


John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Even though that verse does not mean what you think it does,what man or men as of now has the power to forgive sins and why is it necessary when one can go straight to the Father in the name of Christ and be forgiven?

 

[Free]

Please leave discussion of Catholic beliefs for the proper forums.

 

[chestertonrules]

[

John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Even though that verse does not mean what you think it does,what man or men as of now has the power to forgive sins and why is it necessary when one can go straight to the Father in the name of Christ and be forgiven?[/quote]


Why do you think it means something different than what it says?

What do you think it means?

 

[Mysteryman]

Our conversation went in the direction of how the creeds first came to be, and how they were used back then when their origin began.

I never said that the creed itself was evil ! Nor have I implied that ! What I have been saying, is that when they originated the purpose was not to unite. The creed was used to bind, or draw together into one type of belief that the many could accept.

Anything that is not for Him is against Him. With all of your accusations of the ways the creed has bound people and was used to prohibit genuine faith, I would think you would have to see some sort of evil component to it. Or else, why would you feel so strongly opposed to it?

You use the word "binding" in this thread a lot. You and I live in America, and it's 2010. I don't see how this is a problem in today's church. It's not as though you have to say the secret password to get in the doors. I concede that there was a time when people would have been excommunicated for refusing to recite it, but no one's doing this today. How is the creed binding?

I thought I was very contrite in my last response, but my apology only fell on deaf ears. You even get offended when I take something back.

I'm hard pressed figure out why you feel so convicted to fight this fight. The only thing that makes any sense is that you have difference with "mere Christianity" in rejecting Jesus' Divinity and the Trinity, and it bothers you that an agreed upon statement of faith contradicts your own set of beliefs (your creed).

Mike

Your response here shows me you can not take your thoughts within a conversation in a proper direction.

My efforts fell on deaf ears. Its not that you had to agree with me. It is that you keep walking away from the point of the conversation, and you keep trying to take it in another direction.

Let me ask you a question Mike , just so we can see if you understand. Is the fourth century the year 2010 ?

Take your time my friend, I know this is a tough question. And please, don't guess, think it through carefully.

 

[Mike]

Mike

Your response here shows me you can not take your thoughts within a conversation in a proper direction.

My efforts fell on deaf ears. Its not that you had to agree with me. It is that you keep walking away from the point of the conversation, and you keep trying to take it in another direction.

Let me ask you a question Mike , just so we can see if you understand. Is the fourth century the year 2010 ?

Take your time my friend, I know this is a tough question. And please, don't guess, think it through carefully.

Hervey, the condescending, sarcastic nature of your last few posts to me in various threads doesn't help anything. I don't have blinders on :shades , and yes I know what century we're in. We can have disagreement, but you don't have to degrade to this. I've tried to balance my criticism of your conclusions while giving you very lofty praise for your passion for the Lord. I've apologized when you felt I misread the emotions behind a post. Now, I have this; like I'm a 5-year-old. 2

 

[Mysteryman]

Example:

I tell you that in its general wording, the creed is not evil in and of itself.

You respond with this > Quote Mike: "I would think you would have to see some sort of evil component to it. Or else, why would you feel so strongly opposed to it?"


I tell you about the fourth century and how the creed was used in the manner in which it was used to bind and became a dictatorship against heresies. ( Not the words themselves, but "how" it became the binding factor for dictatorship)

You respond with the church in 2010 and how it is used today.

Do you have any idea what it means to be on the same page ?

 

[mondar]

Opposition to the concept of a creed is self refuting. If I remember right, the word "creed" comes from a latin word which means "I believe." It is difficult to recite the several thousand chapters in the Bible and so people summarize that they think the bible teaches in a creedal statement of what they believe. So then, as soon as a person says "I believe creeds are wrong" they have begun developing their own creed. So then, the statement itself, is self refuting.

 

[Mike]

Because you're opposed to us using the creeds today. I know you were talking here about the way it was abused many centuries ago, but you're also very adamant that we should stay away from them today.

Sometimes it seems you're more interested in trying to get others to admit they're wrong, than you even are in yourself being right. So, yes I know what century it is and I know what "staying on the same page" means. Thank you for the respectful tone you have taken as of late.

We should PM each other again, as this has served to be fruitful in the past.

 

[Mysteryman]

Because you're opposed to us using the creeds today. I know you were talking here about the way it was abused many centuries ago, but you're also very adamant that we should stay away from them today.

Sometimes it seems you're more interested in trying to get others to admit they're wrong, than you even are in yourself being right. So, yes I know what century it is and I know what "staying on the same page" means. Thank you for the respectful tone you have taken as of late.

We should PM each other again, as this has served to be fruitful in the past.

Hi Mike:

I guess you could say that I am opposed to the use of the traditions of men, yes. We all know that the creed is a man made generalization of a statement of beliefs. So much so is its generalization, that there will come many interpretations from this.

I also do not see the creed as a way in which brings about unity. I believe that can only occur through the scriptures and the Spirit of God enlightening those who walk after the Spirit and not after man/men.

I hold that the scriptures are of no private interpretation. That they harmonize in such a way as there never being any contradiction with other scriptures.

God wants us to grow spiritually, and not become stagnant .

We should be like a small stream which flows into a creek, which flows into a river, which flows into a lake , which flows into the ocean, and is caught up from the radiant Spirit of our Lord, so that we can bring prosperous rain upon the desolate parts of the earth that needs watering. Then we will see growth like since the first century church, where God added to the church such as should be added, and it grew and was multitplied according to the will and purpose of almighty God.

 

[dadof10]

You agree with the THEOLOGY of the creeds but not the purpose? Is this correct?

Correct! Man cannot choose certain parts of the Word and then apply it in his own understanding. Well, actually, that's exactly what happens...unless we have a spiritual revival. That is what got Jesus crucified...religious men interpreting Scriptures in their own understanding. A "good" verse recited does not make up for a harder verse we ignore.
The Pharisees followed Moses whom they knew had known God personally. They, however, did not. Their zeal did not make up for their own lack of spiritual connection with God. They followed the creeds instead of the Lord. See the folly???How can this not be understood?

Bible interpretation and "following creeds" did not get Jesus crucified. The ambition and pride of the Jewish leaders of the time, along with the Roman authorities fear of insurrection (their misunderstanding of Jesus' message), is what got Him crucified.

Adullum, you seem to toss out many straw-man arguments along with a lot of preaching, which is expected with "home church" people. Much of the rest of your post is irrelevant to the subject of "Creeds". I'll list the straw men and the preaching, then respond to the relevant parts. It will be much more orderly.

Reciting a creed has no bearing on whether one has faith or not.

Agreed, but I never claimed it did.

No creed taken out of the word is authoritave. This is where the system breaks down. Authority rests with the living God.

Agreed, but I never said otherwise.

It is foolish to look down at a book instead of up to God. You will call this a strawman no doubt...as I don't expect very many to discern a living faith from a dead one.

Yes. Because I NEVER MADE THIS CLAIM. That's the definition of "straw-man arguments".

We are called to NOT be a stumbling block to others. It is natural for men to ask...what must I believe to be saved? To respond with a formula is not the intent of God...we are not saved through formulations....

I never said we were "saved" by creeds. All I've EVER said is that they are statements of faith.

A man of God could not condone the use of a creed to replace the Holy Spirit.

I never said he would, nor that creeds "replace" the Holy Spirit.

We should not short-circuit God's revelation to an individual. We cannot say...look...we already know the truth so you don't need to go to God ...just listen to us and say yes to whatever we say!

This statement is more of a caricature of creeds instead of a straw man.

We are all (disciples that is) to be led by the Spirit. Creeds are irrelevent to being right with God. God looks on the heart. Man picks brains.

I never said creeds make us "right with God".

Neither can one serve God AND Mammon. Neither can one be both friends of the world AND of God.

People have a tendency to go the easiest way. One needs perhaps observe humanity awhile to pick this up.

Never made the claim that anyone has to choose between creeds and the Holy Spirit. This is your contention, and has not been proved. Merely claiming "history" and "the Inquisition" doesn't prove that creeds invalidate the Holy Spirit.

Now, the preaching:

Of course 2,000 years of church history has strained to prove God wrong on every count!

A house of straw may be sufficient to keep out the rain. But it will not survive the storm. Neither a house built on a shaky foundation. We need to build with LIVING materials. Are we alive to a different kingdom, or are we creating a religion?

The mafia attend church. How is this possible unless they are coached into giving a dead testimony and fitting in with the rest. In our quest for orthodoxy (of OUR church) we have blurred the distinction of the living and the dead.

The Scriptures are useful...but only God is authorative. Otherwise we are plagued by men who wield that "authority in diabolical ways. Have you heard of the Inquisition? Was that authorative?

Disciples are few. Men seek their own way. That is why we struggle with the carnal ones who would control what the Lord has purchased in His own blood.

The Holy Spirit does what men rely on the oral tradition to do...that is, interpret the meaning and the application of the word. The Holy Spirit is not available to be put into a bookcase to be used at the convenience of men...therefore men look elsewhere!

Every way of man is right in his own eyes. If a man doesn't understand the danger...is he still immune from the consequences??? What does history have to say about that?

He will only recite the creed when prompted by the puppet master at the front to do so. that is the end result of indoctrination.

OK, I think we're ready to move on.

Creeds are statements of belief. Again, the road is widened to include men of every stripe. It is meant for the masses not the brethren.

I thought your argument was that creeds were too constricting? Which is it?

Secondly, if the "revelation" goes directly against revealed Truth, it should be short-circuited, don't you think?

Yes! This is why we are left with the bible...a record of what has gone before....propheciy, testimony etc...

Aren't the creeds Biblical? You must think they are if you AGREE WITH THEIR CONTENT. So would it be proper to use the BIBLICAL CREEDS as a touchstone for orthodoxy, if there is a "revelation" to discern? Wouldn't it be proper to put the Bible and BIBLICAL CREEDS above private "revelation".

How does reciting and holding to a creed, in any way keep God out of the process and keep us from seeking communion with Him? IT'S ONLY A CREED.

Are we to satisfy a carnal way out of a carnal question? One must take someone deeper not just "give the people what they want".

What does this mean?

"Replaced the living testimonies"???? You must be kidding. Are you actually saying that a person will recite the Creed INSTEAD OF giving his testimony??? Have you ever actually seen this happen?

Whole generations have done this. My own parents, aunts, uncles etc......They thought that satisfying church requirement meant satifying God's.

I may have misunderstood what meant when you said "creeds have replaced living testimonies". Did you mean that instead of giving a personal testimony when asked about our faith, we recite the Apostles Creed? Did you mean that instead of telling people what Jesus has done for us and how much we love Him, we regurgitate a creed? If this is what you think, you are sadly mistaken.

Adullum, whether you want to admit it or not, you have a creed. Creeds are simply statements of belief. That's it. Holding a creed didn't lead to the crucifixion or any of the abuses of the past because the groups who were abusing each other, for the most part, held the CREED IN COMMON. It was other doctrines not mentioned in the Apostles or Nicene Creeds that led to these persecutions. History bears this out.

The simple fact remains, when you say "Jesus rose from the dead", or "the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Blessed Trinity" you are reciting a CREED.