The Apostles' Creed

[Mike]

. the bible itsself was put together by men who argued over the trinity and came to accept it. men whom were in persuction and risked their lives at times to preach and teach the word, yet they prayed and decided that lord wanted in the bible to be what the bible was to be. and what the basic doctrine would be.

For the record, there was no "argument" or disagreement about the existence of the Trinity. They discussed how to come to understanding of what they new to be 3 persons within the 1, Singular God.

I'm sorry. I had to clarify that, but this can't turn into another Trinity thread, can it? We had good discussion going on the creed. :gah

 

[jasoncran]

. the bible itsself was put together by men who argued over the trinity and came to accept it. men whom were in persuction and risked their lives at times to preach and teach the word, yet they prayed and decided that lord wanted in the bible to be what the bible was to be. and what the basic doctrine would be.

For the record, there was no "argument" or disagreement about the existence of the Trinity. They discussed how to come to understanding of what they new to be 3 persons within the 1, Singular God.
ok, i can accept that. i was using shad's reasoning against him,if you call the doctrine of the mainline chruch bad then therefore since the catholics came up with the trinity concept and they put the bible in order. it's logical to me to seem that one must pick and choose what should be in the bible. but i will try my best to avoid the trinity debate here.
I'm sorry. I had to clarify that, but this can't turn into another Trinity thread, can it? We had good discussion going on the creed. :gah

 

[dadof10]

I have seen men too often take the ball from God in order to run it forward themselves. Behind this desire to see increase there lies usually an ambition to make a name for themselves.

Me too. It happened at the Reformation. ...

Ahem... this is what the the OP was looking to avoid.

Just couldn't resist the joke. Not trying to usurp the OP, just taking a cheap shot.... :P

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi all:

I just got home from my sons, where I spent most of the day. And I have read the responses to me, as well as the responses that have been given to each other.

What I come away with in reading these responses, is a defence for a man made creed. It is not that the creed is evil in and of itself. It is, that it allows too much room for private interpretation. I am surprized by some of the responses in defence of a man made creed. Many of you are acting as if the creed was inspired by God. Even though you might not believe that it was. You respond as if you do believe it is inspired by God. Many here are willing to defend the creed as if no one should say even a small negative about it.

I am going to repeat this paragraph I wrote this morning >

This is because the creed is too vague, simplified for the general public, especially the unlearned. It sounds good, looks good , seems good, but is only as good as man wrote it. And if simple man wrote it, it is flawed ! It does not project what the scriptures project. It simplifies the scriptures to the point that the true meaning is lost. It leaves way too much room for the imagination and the personnal interpretation of the individual saying the creed.

The creed was written by someone who is a babe in the Word, for babes in the Word. Simple for the simplistic. And -- it leaves way too much room for the imagination and the personnal interpretation of the individual saying the creed !"

Bless

 

[jasoncran]

uh the bible was written by men who read and were knowledgeable on the ot, yet if you look at the quotes and go back to the referenced verse, take note that the verses are slightly different and that leaves room for error.

 

[Mysteryman]

no one said that is NECESSARY for salvation

mm, shad does your church have an order of service, a definition of what they believe in, a doctrine of sorts?

or its this we beleive in the bible? and solo scriptura and so on. if so that is a creed its self.

Hi Jason:

No, there is no definition on what they should believe , just because someone tells them that they should believe such and such.

When I teach the Word, I also remind everyone, that the scriptures tell us, that everyone needs to be persuaded in their own minds. You should never believe what is being taught, just because this Saturday or Sunday service is something you "must" believe, because I say so . When I teach, I teach that it is the Spirit of God that opens up the eyes of one's understanding. And if someone feels uncomfortable with what is being taught, for them to seek out another group by which they will feel comfortable with that wich is being taught. I also suggest, that they give a reasonable amount of time to search their hearts and the scriptures on their own. Then either ask questions, or move on in their own walk. And even if they do not fully understand something. Even after something has been explained extensively, and they still feel comfortable remaining. We all would be blessed if they give what is being taught enough time for them to make a rational decision before staying or leaving.

Doctrine from the scriptures is always taught, and always taught by someone who eats the meat of the Word , or the strong meat of the Word. Respect is asked for our beliefs, in that someone will not cause strife among those who wish to remain and fellowship with us.

The scriptures and the doctrine from the scriptures is of the utmost importance. Everything taught can be documented with scripture. And for the most part, everyone agree's with this kind of reasoning.

Bless

 

[chestertonrules]

I believe in God
the father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth:
And in Jesus Christ
His only Son our Lord,
Who was concieved by the Holy Ghost,
Born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
Was crucified, dead, and buried;
He descended into hell;
The third day he rose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in
The Holy Ghost;
The Holy Catholic Church;
The Communion of Saints;
The forgiveness of sins;
The resurrection of the body;
And the life everlasting. (The Apostles' Creed)


Many times we as Christians focus on the differences in our faiths. If there is one universal statement of faith of the Church, this is it, the Apostles' Creed. Is there anyone, Catholic or Evangelical, who disagrees with this creed?
Westtexas

I haven't read this whole thread, but I have seen many posts from those who deny the communion of the saints. Also, I don't think any evangelical can honestly claim to believe in the Holy Catholic Church as understood by the authors of the Creed.

 

[dadof10]

What I come away with in reading these responses, is a defence for a man made creed. It is not that the creed is evil in and of itself. It is, that it allows too much room for private interpretation.

The same could be said for the private reading Scripture.

I am surprized by some of the responses in defence of a man made creed. Many of you are acting as if the creed was inspired by God. Even though you might not believe that it was. You respond as if you do believe it is inspired by God. Many here are willing to defend the creed as if no one should say even a small negative about it.

I am going to repeat this paragraph I wrote this morning >

This is because the creed is too vague, simplified for the general public, especially the unlearned. It sounds good, looks good , seems good, but is only as good as man wrote it. And if simple man wrote it, it is flawed ! It does not project what the scriptures project. It simplifies the scriptures to the point that the true meaning is lost. It leaves way too much room for the imagination and the personnal interpretation of the individual saying the creed.

The Creed is a basic statement of faith, not a catechism. Some here are willing to reject the creed as if no one should say even a small positive about it.

The creed was written by someone who is a babe in the Word, for babes in the Word. Simple for the simplistic.

Who wrote it (or them)? Do you know? You would be the first.

This is from http://www.christianet.com/bibleverses/apostlescreed.htm

Here is the wording of the Apostles Creed and the Scriptures that support the principles: I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: (Genesis 1:1 and John 3:16) who, was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin, Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. (Luke 1:26-31; 23:14-25, 24:46-56). He descended into hell. (1 Peter 3:19) The third day He arose again from the dead. (Luke 24:26-49) He ascended into Heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. (Luke 24:51; Luke 22:69; 1 Peter 4:6) I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrections of the body, and life everlasting. (Romans 12:5; 1 John 1:9; Hebrews 6:2)

What part of this Biblical statement do you disagree with?

 

[jasoncran]

no one said that is NECESSARY for salvation

mm, shad does your church have an order of service, a definition of what they believe in, a doctrine of sorts?

or its this we beleive in the bible? and solo scriptura and so on. if so that is a creed its self.

Hi Jason:

No, there is no definition on what they should believe , just because someone tells them that they should believe such and such.

When I teach the Word, I also remind everyone, that the scriptures tell us, that everyone needs to be persuaded in their own minds. You should never believe what is being taught, just because this Saturday or Sunday service is something you "must" believe, because I say so . When I teach, I teach that it is the Spirit of God that opens up the eyes of one's understanding. And if someone feels uncomfortable with what is being taught, for them to seek out another group by which they will feel comfortable with that wich is being taught. I also suggest, that they give a reasonable amount of time to search their hearts and the scriptures on their own. Then either ask questions, or move on in their own walk. And even if they do not fully understand something. Even after something has been explained extensively, and they still feel comfortable remaining. We all would be blessed if they give what is being taught enough time for them to make a rational decision before staying or leaving.

Doctrine from the scriptures is always taught, and always taught by someone who eats the meat of the Word , or the strong meat of the Word. Respect is asked for our beliefs, in that someone will not cause strife among those who wish to remain and fellowship with us.

The scriptures and the doctrine from the scriptures is of the utmost importance. Everything taught can be documented with scripture. And for the most part, everyone agree's with this kind of reasoning.

Bless

you have a creed by this, as you claim solo scrptura

 

[Mysteryman]

no one said that is NECESSARY for salvation

mm, shad does your church have an order of service, a definition of what they believe in, a doctrine of sorts?

or its this we beleive in the bible? and solo scriptura and so on. if so that is a creed its self.

Hi Jason:

No, there is no definition on what they should believe , just because someone tells them that they should believe such and such.

When I teach the Word, I also remind everyone, that the scriptures tell us, that everyone needs to be persuaded in their own minds. You should never believe what is being taught, just because this Saturday or Sunday service is something you "must" believe, because I say so . When I teach, I teach that it is the Spirit of God that opens up the eyes of one's understanding. And if someone feels uncomfortable with what is being taught, for them to seek out another group by which they will feel comfortable with that wich is being taught. I also suggest, that they give a reasonable amount of time to search their hearts and the scriptures on their own. Then either ask questions, or move on in their own walk. And even if they do not fully understand something. Even after something has been explained extensively, and they still feel comfortable remaining. We all would be blessed if they give what is being taught enough time for them to make a rational decision before staying or leaving.

Doctrine from the scriptures is always taught, and always taught by someone who eats the meat of the Word , or the strong meat of the Word. Respect is asked for our beliefs, in that someone will not cause strife among those who wish to remain and fellowship with us.

The scriptures and the doctrine from the scriptures is of the utmost importance. Everything taught can be documented with scripture. And for the most part, everyone agree's with this kind of reasoning.

Bless

you have a creed by this, as you claim solo scrptura

Hi Jason

May I ask what you mean by this ?

 

[jasoncran]

you have stated what you believe as the teacher and what i would expect by visiting you. from this i can gather an idea of what to expect from your doctrine. you believe that the bible interprets itself.and one should check the bible against what you say and so on.

sorry not gonna list it all. i could make a creed out of this.

 

[Mysteryman]

you have stated what you believe as the teacher and what i would expect by visiting you. from this i can gather an idea of what to expect from your doctrine. you believe that the bible interprets itself.and one should check the bible against what you say and so on.

sorry not gonna list it all. i could make a creed out of this.

Hi Jason

Actually you couldn't, because a creed is a brief statement of beliefs. That is why it is called a "creed" !

We have no brief statement of beliefs. A brief statement of beliefs should never be given, because only an indepth study of the scriptures must apply. < Nothing brief about this whatsoever !

This is what is faulty with the two creeds mentioned in this thread.

 

[jasoncran]

actually you do. you stated what you belief in short and act on it, that is like a creed.

a mission statement is similar to this.

you have a reason to believe why you do, and i'm sure i could find fault with your line of doctrine if i wanted to.

you didnt give a good reason on the final authority of your version of scripture and how to reconcile that.for not all will see things your way.

and dont assume that these churches are that shallow.
those creeds are a basic(bare bones) to the faith, nothing more then that. . they dont explain it all nor are meant to replace the word like you seem to think.

they are just quick , simple reminders of what to believe and when you actually look at the verses behind them, you could do studies on them.

are memory verses bad to you? i avoid those but that dont make them bad. i like to read the bible and strive to get the principals down and the lord will bring things to memory.

 

[stranger]

Mysteryman wrote:

When I teach the Word, I also remind everyone, that the scriptures tell us, that everyone needs to be persuaded in their own minds. You should never believe what is being taught, just because this Saturday or Sunday service is something you "must" believe, because I say so . When I teach, I teach that it is the Spirit of God that opens up the eyes of one's understanding. And if someone feels uncomfortable with what is being taught, for them to seek out another group by which they will feel comfortable with that wich is being taught. I also suggest, that they give a reasonable amount of time to search their hearts and the scriptures on their own. Then either ask questions, or move on in their own walk. And even if they do not fully understand something. Even after something has been explained extensively, and they still feel comfortable remaining. We all would be blessed if they give what is being taught enough time for them to make a rational decision before staying or leaving.

I can't see how this isn't the very essence of private interpretation? Yet you seem to speak against private interpretation frequently. How would you respond to this:

Is what you teach consistent with what Christians have always believed?

 

[Mysteryman]

actually you do. you stated what you belief in short and act on it, that is like a creed.

a mission statement is similar to this.

you have a reason to believe why you do, and i'm sure i could find fault with your line of doctrine if i wanted to.

you didnt give a good reason on the final authority of your version of scripture and how to reconcile that.for not all will see things your way.

and dont assume that these churches are that shallow.
those creeds are a basic(bare bones) to the faith, nothing more then that. . they dont explain it all nor are meant to replace the word like you seem to think.

they are just quick , simple reminders of what to believe and when you actually look at the verses behind them, you could do studies on them.

are memory verses bad to you? i avoid those but that dont make them bad. i like to read the bible and strive to get the principals down and the lord will bring things to memory.

Hi Jason:

Correct ! "Simple"

And the creed is not something you do studies upon. Because if you do, you will do your best to confirm the creed as it is written. There are two creeds here mentioned in this thread. Tomorrow there could be six more creeds , whoever wants to make one up. And there could be just enough differences between them, that people will argue over them for one reason or another.

great talking with you Jason , sleep well

 

[Mysteryman]

Mysteryman wrote:

When I teach the Word, I also remind everyone, that the scriptures tell us, that everyone needs to be persuaded in their own minds. You should never believe what is being taught, just because this Saturday or Sunday service is something you "must" believe, because I say so . When I teach, I teach that it is the Spirit of God that opens up the eyes of one's understanding. And if someone feels uncomfortable with what is being taught, for them to seek out another group by which they will feel comfortable with that wich is being taught. I also suggest, that they give a reasonable amount of time to search their hearts and the scriptures on their own. Then either ask questions, or move on in their own walk. And even if they do not fully understand something. Even after something has been explained extensively, and they still feel comfortable remaining. We all would be blessed if they give what is being taught enough time for them to make a rational decision before staying or leaving.

I can't see how this isn't the very essence of private interpretation? Yet you seem to speak against private interpretation frequently. How would you respond to this:

Is what you teach consistent with what Christians have always believed?

Hi Stanger

Let me ask you -- According to whom ?

 

[Vic C.]

I haven't read this whole thread, but I have seen many posts from those who deny the communion of the saints. Also, I don't think any evangelical can honestly claim to believe in the Holy Catholic Church as understood by the authors of the Creed.

Please don't think! LOL I've already defined the word catholic as it was intended. Plus, since it was written late 2nd. century, pre-RCC,er, excuse me, Latin Rite church, maybe you'd like to tell us the authors intentions?

Besides, one of the earliest versions of this creed simply said, "The Holy Church."

 

[stranger]

Mysteryman wrote:

When I teach the Word, I also remind everyone, that the scriptures tell us, that everyone needs to be persuaded in their own minds. You should never believe what is being taught, just because this Saturday or Sunday service is something you "must" believe, because I say so . When I teach, I teach that it is the Spirit of God that opens up the eyes of one's understanding. And if someone feels uncomfortable with what is being taught, for them to seek out another group by which they will feel comfortable with that wich is being taught. I also suggest, that they give a reasonable amount of time to search their hearts and the scriptures on their own. Then either ask questions, or move on in their own walk. And even if they do not fully understand something. Even after something has been explained extensively, and they still feel comfortable remaining. We all would be blessed if they give what is being taught enough time for them to make a rational decision before staying or leaving.

I can't see how this isn't the very essence of private interpretation? Yet you seem to speak against private interpretation frequently. How would you respond to this:

Is what you teach consistent with what Christians have always believed?

Hi Stanger

Let me ask you -- According to whom ?

Hi MM,

According to whom? According to the process you describe:

When I teach the Word, I also remind everyone, that the scriptures tell us, that everyone needs to be persuaded in their own minds.

You then go on to describe what happens if someone disagrees etc. How is this not the very essence of private interpretation?

We both know how common it is to hear - 'our beliefs are biblical and the Holy Spirit teaches us and helps us interpret the scriptures.'

Have you ever asked: Is my teaching consistent with what Christians have always believed?

 

[westtexas]

. the bible itsself was put together by men who argued over the trinity and came to accept it. men whom were in persuction and risked their lives at times to preach and teach the word, yet they prayed and decided that lord wanted in the bible to be what the bible was to be. and what the basic doctrine would be.

For the record, there was no "argument" or disagreement about the existence of the Trinity. They discussed how to come to understanding of what they new to be 3 persons within the 1, Singular God.

I'm sorry. I had to clarify that, but this can't turn into another Trinity thread, can it? We had good discussion going on the creed. :gah

I don't want to speak for Jason but I believe that the Council of Nicaea WAS called by Constantine to settle the dispute over the Trinity. It was called to settle this dispute between those who believed in the Trinity and those who did not. (Arianism) And thus the Nicene Creed was written.

Westtexas

 

[Mike]

I can't see how this isn't the very essence of private interpretation? Yet you seem to speak against private interpretation frequently. How would you respond to this:

Is what you teach consistent with what Christians have always believed?

Hi Stanger

Let me ask you -- According to whom ?[/quote]

MM, I'm sorry to be blunt, but you are a living example of what can happen when someone goes off and re-creates a belief system based on their own interpretation of the Bible. They can cloak themselves with the "I'm just allowing myself to read the true meaning" all they want, but in the end, they are justifying a process by which they've arrived at false doctrine. Then the usual tactic is to try to convince believers that the original believers never held some of the core tenets of our Christian belief.

You reject the Trinity and that Jesus was/is God. And you spend a lot of time trying to convince people that everything Christians have believed is a smokescreen, deliberately or not deliberately, put in place along the way. It's almost a "superiority complex" in my opinion. And that leads back to the discussion at hand: The Apostles Creed. On your own, you seem to have convinced yourself (but more likely, were convinced by someone) along the way that some of our core tenets were wrong, and you reject the premise of the creed.

No one said it was Inspired, but you've rejected that notion twice. To whom? It seems like you're boxing shadows for no reason at all, other than the fact that you disagree with the core doctrine of Christianity. As I've said before, I have tremendous appreciation for your zeal for God, but in rejecting the Divinity of Jesus, you are not encountering the Real God. And this manifests itself in disagreements such as this.