The Apostles' Creed

[jasoncran]

act 2:39 simply means that unto the ends of the earth in that part of the verse, mm

the whole world must be reached for christ.

 

[shad]

That's just a cliche, something for billboards. Our faith is much more deep and detailed than a bumper sticker...

So your church creed fits your standard?

 

[Mysteryman]

act 2:39 simply means that unto the ends of the earth in that part of the verse, mm

the whole world must be reached for christ.

Hi Jason

There is nothing wrong with reaching out to the world. But don't get your expectations too high, because those of the world will not hear your message. As Jesus said, only my sheep will hear my voice. The sheep that the Father has given him.

Also one must remember, that only those whom the Lord our God shall call.

 

[dadof10]

However, the creed was written for one purpose, and one purpose only. And you are giving us a great example of that here. Its called dictatorship !

Second, its original purpose as to why it was written, was to bind everyone to a code, which is why its called a creed. A watered down word for being a code. This code (creed) was designed to seperate all those who would not participate in saying the code (creed) with the purpose of eliminating them from the group. It was used to controll , just like any dictatorship does.

Oh, COME ON! Dictatorship? Elimination? Control? When you say "I believe in Jesus" you are siting a personal CREED.

Why the paranoia?

 

[dadof10]

i am charismatic and know this to be quite true.

"And charismatic "believers" COULD mistake personal thoughts for divine revelation and found their own cult. That actually has happened before. Again, don't you think there should be some checks to "revelation from God"? "

think benny hinn :bigfrown and others :verysad

:yes

 

[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.........

 

[dadof10]

Christians should not make any creed of their own. Why do you need one? Why should only certain things be written as creeds?

Jesus' followers have only one creed, to Jesus Christ, the Word.

Don't you find this statement contradictory? Which is it, should we have only one creed or none?

 

[Mysteryman]

However, the creed was written for one purpose, and one purpose only. And you are giving us a great example of that here. Its called dictatorship !

Second, its original purpose as to why it was written, was to bind everyone to a code, which is why its called a creed. A watered down word for being a code. This code (creed) was designed to seperate all those who would not participate in saying the code (creed) with the purpose of eliminating them from the group. It was used to controll , just like any dictatorship does.

Oh, COME ON! Dictatorship? Elimination? Control? When you say "I believe in Jesus" you are siting a personal CREED.

Why the paranoia?

Hi

I believe you are gravely making a mistake by calling my wisdom and understanding, and calling it paranoia.

Check your history of the creed. It is not just a simple statement of belief ! The early church after the death of the apostles, became very controlling and very violent. Many christians had to go into hiding in fear of being killed/murdered for their stance on christianity. The history of the church has many darkened days of history behind it, after the death of the apostles. Many wanted to rise to power and authority, and did so by means of violence and controll over the masses.

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

 

[Mike]

Check your history of the creed. It is not just a simple statement of belief ! The early church after the death of the apostles, became very controlling and very violent. Many christians had to go into hiding in fear of being killed/murdered for their stance on christianity. The history of the church has many darkened days of history behind it, after the death of the apostles. Many wanted to rise to power and authority, and did so by means of violence and controll over the masses.

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

MM, can you cite sources for the creeds being the product of a "controlling and very violent" group of people with an agenda, as opposed to being what most have come to see of them; a statement that concisely puts together what we believe as His One Christian Church? I'm almost positive that the former is (on the whole) wrong and the latter is (on the whole) right.

Many people in general will reject anything that looks like order. And as they begin to reject something, the size of that point snowballs to the point that they've made it such a big issue, they become rather militant about it. I don't know why some people feel it's so important to "take this hill", so to speak. There is a generally militant objection from some people to the creeds. They aren't simply saying "I choose not to say them." They take it further and say "You're a heretic for saying them. I'm just trying to understand why some feel it's so vital, that they have to endlessly tell us the creeds are wrong.

Hervey, I think I understand where your personal motivation comes from. I know you have grown much in your faith walk. At some point you were compelled to believe differently from the main line beliefs you grew up with, and these differences included some things in the Creed; in fact it would say most of it. You believe Jesus isn't and never was God. So, I understand where your personal objection with what the creeds say comes from. The line in the Nicene Creed referring to Jesus as "Very God of Very God" has got to upset you greatly.

Just a reminder about the sources. I will promise to keep an open mind, but I would hope they would be historically credible and not someone's commentary on it.

Thanks!
Mike

 

[Mysteryman]

Check your history of the creed. It is not just a simple statement of belief ! The early church after the death of the apostles, became very controlling and very violent. Many christians had to go into hiding in fear of being killed/murdered for their stance on christianity. The history of the church has many darkened days of history behind it, after the death of the apostles. Many wanted to rise to power and authority, and did so by means of violence and controll over the masses.

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

MM, can you cite sources for the creeds being the product of a "controlling and very violent" group of people with an agenda, as opposed to being what most have come to see of them; a statement that concisely puts together what we believe as His One Christian Church? I'm almost positive that the former is (on the whole) wrong and the latter is (on the whole) right.

Many people in general will reject anything that looks like order. And as they begin to reject something, the size of that point snowballs to the point that they've made it such a big issue, they become rather militant about it. I don't know why some people feel it's so important to "take this hill", so to speak. There is a generally militant objection from some people to the creeds. They aren't simply saying "I choose not to say them." They take it further and say "You're a heretic for saying them. I'm just trying to understand why some feel it's so vital, that they have to endlessly tell us the creeds are wrong.

Hervey, I think I understand where your personal motivation comes from. I know you have grown much in your faith walk. At some point you were compelled to believe differently from the main line beliefs you grew up with, and these differences included some things in the Creed; in fact it would say most of it. You believe Jesus isn't and never was God. So, I understand where your personal objection with what the creeds say comes from. The line in the Nicene Creed referring to Jesus as "Very God of Very God" has got to upset you greatly.

Just a reminder about the sources. I will promise to keep an open mind, but I would hope they would be historically credible and not someone's commentary on it.

Thanks!
Mike

Hi Mike:

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

> >The Apostles' Creed

As the Christian church spread throughout the Roman world in the first century, and as the first leaders died out, there was a practical need for local churches to have a basic statement of beliefs. As false teachers began to bring in strange ideas, Christians needed to know "Just what is it that we believe?"

Some of these churches had a few books of the New Testament, perhaps some of Paul's letters or one of the four Gospels. But none of the churches had all the New Testament. They needed a standard to judge whether a teaching was truth, or heresy.

The early Christians also realized that new people didn't have to know everything before they could be baptized and accepted as believers. How much should they know and accept before being admitted into the church? This was another reason that early churches wanted a brief statement of what they believed to be most essential.

Churches in different cities and regions made their own lists, which had many points in common, since all the churches had traditions tracing back to the apostles in one way or another. The small differences were eventually eliminated as church leaders discussed these things with one another. They shared not only the scriptures they had, but also their statements of faith.

When Christianity became a legal religion in the fourth century, this process became easier. Churches throughout the empire agreed on which books should form the New Testament, and they agreed on several basic statements of faith.

A summary of apostolic teaching

One of the doctrinal lists commonly used in the Western empire was called the Apostles' Creed. The word "creed" comes from the Latin word credo, meaning "I believe." It was called "Apostles" not because the apostles themselves wrote it (although some people may have thought this), but because the Creed was believed to be an accurate summary of what the apostles taught.

The Creed was useful in several ways:

The Creed was a public statement of faith, a standardized way in which new people could confess their faith in Jesus Christ.

The Creed anchored Christian faith to a tradition, to make it difficult for people or churches to be led astray by strange doctrines. Binding/dictatorship

The Creed was a preaching and teaching tool, giving an outline for further discipleship.dictatorship

The Creed was memorized through frequent repetition, which helped the many believers who could not read.Ignorance

The Creed provided a doctrinal basis for different churches to accept one another, and to reject those who did not accept the basic truths.dictatorship

The Bible itself contains brief creed-like statements (1 Cor. 8:6; 15:3-4; 1 Tim. 3:16). The early church leaders also wrote short creeds, perhaps as baptism ceremonies. These eventually were recited by congregations in their worship services.

Writing in Greek somewhere around the year 200, Irenaeus describes a creed that has some similarities to the Apostles' Creed, and may have been a precursor. He presented his creed not as something new, but as something the church had been using for a long time. He lived in what is now France, but had grown up in Asia Minor, where he had been taught by Polycarp, a student of the apostle John.

An early Latin version of the Creed is in the writings of Tertullian, from North Africa, about the year 220. About a century later, Marcellus, from Asia Minor, shared a similar creed. In A.D. 390, after study in Rome, Egypt and Palestine, Rufinus had a similar creed in northern Italy. < < <

Mike:

I put a few emphasis mine in red, and made some underlines for emphasis also . Also notice the many creeds spoken about here. After the fourth century, christianity became a legalized religion, making it easier for this legal stem to become very dominating and demanding. The different creeds were used as a standard of belief. Which meant that someone walking by the Spirit no longer had a say, as the standard became the law. Dictatorship became the standard of interpretation. Thus, no person would dare go up against the law and legality of the church system.

Why don't we start here first. History will prove without a doubt, that the church became so legalistic that many were put to death , not over the creed itself, but because of the private interpretation of scripture put upon the creed. The creed became the legal document . The church turned into a law of bondage, so that the law of liberty no longer existed in their view. They dictated to the ignorant and held capitve them who would not adhere to their private interpretation of the scriptures. The creed was just a model by which then became a code ( a body of classified laws or regulations; a system of signals) within christendom. Now the church became its own governing power of dictatorship.

This brought about the same ruling power that caused the death of Stephen in the book of Acts. chapter 7. All done legally.

The Jews integrated themselves with the law of the land during the time of Jesus and after the day of pentecost. The killing of Jesus and the killing of Stephen was all done legally and under the law of that day.

About the fourth century , the church became legalized. And in this case, history repeats itself.

Care to comment ?

 

[shad]

The Jews integrated themselves with the law of the land during the time of Jesus and after the day of pentecost. The killing of Jesus and the killing of Stephen was all done legally and under the law of that day.

About the fourth century , the church became legalized. And in this case, history repeats itself.

It seems that killing non-trinitarians was legal too.

 

[francisdesales]

That's just a cliche, something for billboards. Our faith is much more deep and detailed than a bumper sticker...

So your church creed fits your standard?

I believe it. It doesn't encompass everything I believe about God, but it says a lot more about who we are and what we believe than a cliche.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

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

The Pharisees thought the same thing. Period... Mark 2, for example.

 

[Adullam]

Dad of 12 wrote: Two questions for you:

1) What specifically do you find repugnant in the creeds?

2) How does your concept of the Holy Spirit "running the church" exclude the concept of men, guided by the Holy Spirit, formulating creeds? Why does it have to be either/or instead of both/and?

OK, three questions.

Well, what begins in humility must continue in humility. If person A receives something from the Holy Spirit, does this give him the right to stop person B from receiving from the Spirit as well?

The creeds are good and factual...however the purpose we use them for are not.

I can assume the answer to question 1 above is "nothing"? 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?

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!

First, no one is saying that to have a creed means we no longer "need to go to God ...just listen to us and say yes to whatever we say!". That's a classic straw-man argument. Again, the creeds are statements of faith. That's it.

People have a tendency to go the easiest way. One needs perhaps observe humanity awhile to pick this up. One may need revelation from God as well. Creeds are statements of belief. Reciting a creed has no bearing on whether one has faith or not. Again, the road is widened to include men of every stripe. It is meant for the masses not the brethren.

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...

And finally, if a person (you, for instance) says "I believe in Jesus" you are reciting a CREED. Here is the definition:

1. any system, doctrine, or formula of religious belief, as of a denomination.
2. any system or codification of belief or of opinion.
3. an authoritative, formulated statement of the chief articles of Christian belief, as the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, or the Athanasian Creed.

No creed taken out of the word is authoritave. This is where the system breaks down. Authority rests with the living God. 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. A Creed could be used for a grave marker I suppose... :gah

[quote:3ihw4w7v]The good will always get in the way of the perfect.

Huh??? Always? Would you like to rephrase this?

Think harder! 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?

We want God to be in the process do we not???...not just somewhere historically beginning the process. We are not just interested in being kosher! The process is what brings the intimacy with God. Most are satisfied with an institution or a tradition...few actually seek communion with God.

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.

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....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".

Why is fornication sin when the sex act is condoned by God? Because we skip the process!!!!!!! There is a process of commitment and depth that one makes BEFORE getting to the physical parts. So it is with a living testimony. Creeds have by and large replaced the living testimonies. All this for the human fear of error and heresies.

"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.

Person A: "I'm really interested in your church. You seem like a great Christian witness, tell me what makes you so happy and content?

Person B: "I believe in one God..."

C'mon, Adullam. Really???

Person B will rather stare blankly at you, wondering what you are talking about. 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.

The creeds possibly could be used to check out an individual who says he has received revelation from God. These creeds could be hidden in a bottom drawer of whatever.

And charismatic "believers" COULD mistake personal thoughts for divine revelation and found their own cult. That actually has happened before. Again, don't you think there should be some checks to "revelation from God"?

Of course! But people go to both extremes however. Should we not watch out for those who give lip service and pretend to understand what is going on? 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.
Person 1. Does he have legs and arms???? .
Person 2. Yes but it is a corpse!!!!
Person 1. Quit with the strawman arguments!

But really we don't need creeds. We are not called to prevent error in the church but to correct it. Let man be free...and let the Holy Spirit do His work. You will soon see what God is doing. The human control method leaves God out and gives the clergy a "god" complex. This is the exact error of the Pharisees. They judged Jesus from their traditions (and creeds) and missed the truth.

Again, the work of the Holy Spirit is not stifled by creeds. I don't know where you get this idea.

History

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

Another Straw-Man.

Look deeper.

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.

And another...

Go deeper. Seek the Lord on this

You cannot be led by creeds AND the Holy Spirit.

Why not? Can you be led by Scripture and the Holy Spirit?

The Scriptures point to the Holy Spirit. Does it say...those who are led by the sciptures are the sons of God? Or rather...

Rom 8:14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

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?

Neither can one serve God AND Mammon. Neither can one be both friends of the world AND of God. Of course 2,000 years of church history has strained to prove God wrong on every count!

And another...

I hear a mind closing....

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!

This really has nothing to do with creeds.[/quote:3ihw4w7v]

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?

 

[francisdesales]

I believe you are gravely making a mistake by calling my wisdom and understanding, and calling it paranoia.

Check your history of the creed. It is not just a simple statement of belief ! The early church after the death of the apostles, became very controlling and very violent.

Can you cite for us where the "early church" after the death of the apostles became very "controlling and violent"? What a bunch of baloney...

 

[francisdesales]

MM, can you cite sources for the creeds being the product of a "controlling and very violent" group of people with an agenda, as opposed to being what most have come to see of them; a statement that concisely puts together what we believe as His One Christian Church? I'm almost positive that the former is (on the whole) wrong and the latter is (on the whole) right.

Hi Mike:

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 took this history from a web site. You tell me if it is accurate or not, okay ?...[rest deleted, as it is off topic...]

We are still looking for your historically inaccurate assertions about the Church immediately following the Apostles' death as controlling and violent. That's what Mike asked, that is what I asked.

All you cite is that the creed is a very early symbol or rule of faith. No kiddin. Now, how about your historical citations - or a retraction?

 

[Mike]

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.

 

[mondar]

I have had a growing interest in the early Church. I am not well read and do not claim to be an authority, but would be happy to be a part of a calm discussion on things pertaining to the early Church. Before going on I want to say that I will be using the term "Church," and "Christianity" very loosely. I am not using the term in any theological correct or biblical way. I am asking for everyone to cut me some slack as I use those two terms.

I know "wiki" is not the best source of information, but it is certainly quick and easy. If you want a small amount of information feel free to look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutio ... onstantine
I especially recommend reading about the persecutions of Diocletian and Galerius. It is under the title ""The Great Persecution."

You will find that Christianity was a persecuted religion until close to the beginning of the 4th century. If one would do a little more research, a long list of martyrs can be found in the early Church.

I would agree that Constantine changed things in a major way when he stopped the persecution of Christians. Some of the benefits were very good, others were doubtful. Before Constantine, paganism was the state religion of Rome. After Constantine, the state religion of Rome was doubtful until the Roman Empire collapsed, and then different forms of Christianity (some Arian---some Orthodox) began to become the state religion in the west... In the east, Byzantine Christianity become the state religion until the 1400s.

It might be more valid to say that Christianity progressively became more violent as time passed after the time of Constantine. Now it might be doubtful to call heretical (from the Orthodox perspective) tribal Germans as "Christians," nevertheless, as Rome disintegrates at the hands of German tribal invaders, many of them were Arian Christians. I don't believe that they threw the orthodox into Lions dens, but they were involved in persecution when they took over all Orthodox christian Churches. Yet, even after Constantine, during some of the conflicts between the German tribes and the remnants of the Roman Empire, it was not the orthodox Christians that were the military agressors, but usually the Arian strip of Christianity. The Vandals invaded north Africa and they were Arain. The earlier Franks invaded Gaul, and they were also Arian (until the conversion of the Frankish king and then they became orthodox.) At this point, the Orthodox Christians in the west are taking a beating. In the East, in Byzantium, the Byzantine Empire is developing its form of Christianity under a state religion. I am not familiar with the history of eastern Christianity as much at this time. I do not know how much persecution occurred.

Now after the dark ages, and the over throw of Rome. The medieval culture was simply a violent and warlike culture. I am speaking of the times of the Viking invasions, the crusades, etc. Jewish pogroms and persecutions certainly occurred. Crusaders sacked Jewish villages, attacked Constantinople, Muslims, and other Christians and Churches. Of course the political and military power of the Church was great as the concept of the state Church had its heyday. This religious violence continued from the middle ages to the Reformation. The western Church simply reflected the warlike culture in which it existed. I would date the most violent period of Christianity as being from the fall of Rome in the beginning of the 5th century to the year 1648. There was little Christian virtue on either side in the 30 years war, but after it was over, the power of the State Church seemed to be broken, and the beginning of the nation state seems to have begun. The slow tide of secularism in nations began to rise. The enlightenment and its secular philosophies was to begin.

My opinion------> As the power of secular thinking becomes more and more entrenched as the religion of the state, this is where the next persecution will come from. I don't see the west as being overthrown by Muslim extremists. I don't see any chances of a specific Christian religion returning to the middle ages or medieval culture and overthrowing the state and setting up a state Church again and persecuting those not within their theological perspective. In my opinion, that is absurd and not going to happen. My fear is the power of the secular state.

My Opinion-------> In my opinion, it is not a creed that causes persecution. I see no Christian group espousing violence today. Sure, there is the occasional Jim Jones, the wild eyed crackpot cults out there from time to time, but they do not espouse any creeds. They look to human leaders as authorities. Maybe if they had followed some major creed, many lives would have been saved.

 

[dadof10]

Check your history of the creed. It is not just a simple statement of belief !

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". Are you Catholic? Jewish? Mormon? I'm going to guess the answer to all three is "no". Ask yourself why you aren't a member of these groups. The only logical answer is "because I believe different things than they do". Like it or not, you HAVE A CREED, a set of beliefs. You can rail against the concept all you want to, but the moment you take a stand on a doctrine or reject another, you are professing a creed.

 

[Mike]

Check your history of the creed. It is not just a simple statement of belief !

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". Are you Catholic? Jewish? Mormon? I'm going to guess the answer to all three is "no". Ask yourself why you aren't a member of these groups. The only logical answer is "because I believe different things than they do". Like it or not, you HAVE A CREED, a set of beliefs. You can rail against the concept all you want to, but the moment you take a stand on a doctrine or reject another, you are professing a creed.

nicely said!