Why Ecumenical Creeds Should Be Dropped

[Webb]

Hi Nick--I don't know what faith you belong to but its possible your preacher has a creed book. I used to belong to a denomination and we said the "Apostles' Creed" each Sunday, yet we had a creed book as well that went beyond the "Apostle's Creed."

 

[Former Christian]

Nick

“As long as the Bible is #1, what is the problem with creeds?â€

Yes, that’s the real question isn’t it. The problem is that creeds, not only are considered equal to the Bible as a summary of belief, but they tend to replace the Bible in the areas covered as a denominational statement. Creeds define the denomination, more than the Bible. They think the creed is what the Bible says. But in actuality, the creed only defines what the Bible says to the denomination. If we were all united in our thinking as to what the Bible says, there would be no problem having a creed. But that isn’t the situation. Besides, I think someone already pointed out that if the Bible is #1, why do we even need a #2?


“Ok, let's take the Apostles creed. Who agrees and who disagrees with what it says? â€

If one disagrees with one part of a creed, one disagrees with the creed. If agreeing with most of the Apostles Creed is sufficient, then it would define a JW for the most part.

But consider this phrase in the Apostles Creed:

“the communion of saintsâ€

There is a difference in how a Catholic and how a Protestant would understand that. To a Catholic it would be a reference to all saints living and dead whoever lived. To a Protestent, it would refer to the saints now living, some would say generally, some would say in one’s own Church. The Creed becomes a point of division because of a difference in the interpretation of the phrase.

Which brings up another point. The Bible isn’t the only thing that’s being interpreted in Christianity. Creeds are interpreted also, as this last example shows.

I disagree with one phrase in the Apostles Creed.

“the holy catholic Churchâ€

I don’t believe that such a thing exists. The ekklesia described in the New Testament are local expressions far different than the Churches in Christianity. The only universal aspect is seen in many things, the Body of Christ (Eph 1) as the residence of Christ on earth through the Spirit, and the temple of God as the residence of God on the earth (Eph 2), the kingdom of the Son as the authority of Christ in the ekklesia (Col 1), the exercise of the priesthood in Christ (1 Pet 2). These are all aspects that every local ekklesia is intended to express.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Webb

''Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." Acts 26:28

To which Paul replies,

Acts 26: 29 And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.

Interpretively it says this, “I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether Christians as I amâ€. An interpretation that Christians believe.

But apart from interpretation, it says what it says.

FC

 

[Webb]

Well put.

 

[Webb]

FormerChristian--Do you know of any reason for one to be anything but a Christian?

 

[Enow]

It was your singling out the Catholics as something to be shunned that makes it appear to be Protestant.

Understood.

That I can agree with. But when you single out a specific group, as you did, in the sense that you did, then it becomes more than mere disagreement. If you had of included Protestants and let it go at that, there would have been no
offense. As you say, even Protestants have creeds. If you had of just said that
creeds are more divisive than unitive, you would have no argument from me.

Seeing how the creeds were formed of old to have an "agreement" with a church from which the other churches were "protesting from": it was time to point out that there should have been no agreement in the first place: hence the long practised creeds goes against the exhortation to the churches in Corinthians, and thus there should never have been a creed of the Protestants.

I’m not in favor of the thinking of Christianity as a whole. It’s denominational in its thinking. And I emphasize that because it’s a part of what I am. And people here understand that. They know I’m not here to convert anyone to my own thinking. To do so would be to nullify what I believe about Christianity, and what I believe to be the solution to the problem. Which is in direct contrast to
starting another denomination.

Well: just so you know where I am coming from: the prophesied falling away from the faith is to be so bad that only a few will find it: it is that distinction that no denomenational church is safe as God calls every individual believer to be ready.

For those that stop believing: they are still my brothers: 2 Timothy 2nd chapter says so. Same goes for those that engaged in works of iniquity.

Webb doesn’t consider himself a Protestant. But that apparently isn’t the case with you.

Sorry, but I do not represent any denomenation. It is by His grace and His help that I am representing Jesus Christ as He helps me to keep the faith which is the good fight.

I realize that Catholics and Protestants are more alike in their thinking than not, more alike than most on either side realize.

Hence the creeds are ecumenical and contrary to 2 Corinthians 6:14-18. The creeds are certainly not helping matters.

That’s one thing I think Francis realizes. Otherwise his whole purpose on this forum would be to evangelize. And I don’t think he would have lasted five years if that was his primary agenda. So you’ll have to forgive me if I’m as offended as a Catholic by what you implied. Because I’m not what you are either. Let’s just hope and consider this all a misunderstanding.

I forgive you if you are offended. As for any Catholic brother or sister: this truth is known that they are still my brother and sister. 2 Thessalonians 3:1-7,14-15 but there is a call to withdraw and seperate to stand for the faith in Jesus Christ.

I call hymnals the second Bible because they are in practicality used in that sense. The hymns in the hymnals are not inspired, no matter how much Scripture they contain. Any more than any other book written by a Christian. Or any sermon a Christian might deliver. Yet they are used as if they are as inspired as the Bible. I know of at least one denomination that acknowledges their hymnal to be a doctrinal standard. And thus like a creed, it has the same authority as the
Bible itself. The Bible already has an inspired hymnal. It’s called the Psalms.

In my opinion, to be against creeds, and not against hymnals, which in
practicality is a creed in song, is to nullify what you say about the
creeds.

Creeds were done as an ecumenical agreement: not as representing a believer.

Hymnals were not done to for an ecumenical agreement.

Creeds are considered as authoritative as the Bible itself. Just
denominationally authoritative. So also the hymnals.

Yeah: and in that sense: how one church use a creed as an authoritative in representing their "church" which is stated in the creed is being overlooked by other churches, rationalizing the term "catholic" as meaning "universal".

Refer back to what I said to Webb. Maybe you’ll better understand where I’m coming from. I could start a thread, “Why I’m a former Christian, and why I believe what I do”. To put it all in one place. But since I already have 240 posts to my name, the space needed would be prohibitive. Unfortunately, there’s no way to index one’s posts. So referral without an excellent memory is pretty much an impossibility. My memory is far from excellent.

That is okay. God be willing, I shall get to know you.

Creeds and denominations go hand in hand. Creeds are simply denominational beliefs of the denomination.

Which by seeing the current trend: some churches are forgetting what seperates them from other denomenations.

 

[Enow]

As long as the Bible is #1, what is the problem with creeds?

My church sometimes says the Aposltes or Nicene creeds together and find it very unifying and helpful. I find it is a good summary.

Ok, let's take the Apostles creed. Who agrees and who disagrees with what it says?

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

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

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

#1: Did the Apostles really made up that creed? Who has the authority to say what an Apostle creed would be?

#2. If it was such a good idea: why didn't any letter to the churches teach a creed to "guard" against error?

Could this be the reason?

2 Corinthians 3:1Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you? 2Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: 3Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. 4And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: 5Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; 6Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

#3. That reference to believing in "the holy catholic Church" has been rationalized as having the term "catholic" to mean "universal". Explain how I am seeing now that "catholic" is being capitalized in the bulletin of my former Presbyterian church? I remember that they made a big deal about it: changed "catholic" to "christian", but they brought the term "catholic" back and capitalized too.

The fact is: the creeds were created to unify the churches: to bring them together: Neither the disciples nor Paul saw such a necessity for a creed.

And 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 rebukes such ecumenical agreement.

God be willing: I shall post again to show error in the Nicene creed.

 

[Enow]

To keep the post short: The link goes to the Nicene creed below:

The Nicene Creed

Once again, there is a reference to believing in the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

Now, putting my previous point aside in how one denomenation is saying it as authoritative in representing their specific church as being the Church: I would like to point out that I do not see the Church in Revelation, but seven churches that God addressed. There is one body: but I do wonder if creeds are misrepresenting as to how many churches there actually is in God's eyes as ministering? Certainly it is misleading for any church to declare themselves to be the "Church".

Now to the outright errors:

Jesus is the Giver of Life: not the Holy Spirit.

John 6:32Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

John 11:25Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

John 14:6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

1 John 5:11And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 13These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

One can say that the Holy Spirit is life: not the Giver of Life.

Romans 8:10And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Because of whose righteousness? The righteousness of the Son.

So as Jesus baptizes us with the Holy Ghost: He is giving us life as well.

Modern Bible translations have John 6:32-35 and others, but they overlook those key verses in favour of those changed verses that the King James Bible has with the "spirit" being a small "s" of what modern Bibles have changed it to a capital "S".

King James Bible ~

2 Corinthians 3: 6Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. ~

New International Version ~

2 Corinthians 3:6He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. ~

And so in this: the creed is in error but most believers will just gloss over it giving the glory of that title of the Giver of Life to the Spirit vwhen the Holy Spirit would not speak of Himself, but testify of the Son in seeking His glory and thus those that made up this creed were not led by the Holy Spirit to give Himself that title.

John 16:13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

John 15:26But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: 27And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

There is another error: but God be willing: it will has to come in another post.

 

[Enow]

The link again to the Nicene creed below for context:

The Nicene Creed

The other error which has never been substantiated by scripture and is indeed, an assumption made by churches down through the centuries probably because of the Nicene creed: is that the Holy Spirit is to be worshipped with the Father and the Son. Don't get me wrong. I believe the Holy Spirit is a Person and He is God, but there are no scripture to support that part of the creed.

Examine the evidence, keep in mind the role of the Holy Spirit as a witness: He cannot speak of Himself: He seeks to testify of the Son in seeking His glory: so how can the Holy Spirit lead any believer to worship and to glorify Himself as the Holy Spirit? He would not. The Holy Spirit is God and He will keep His word on how to be a true witness.

John 5:31If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

John 7:18He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

So it would be unrighteous for the Holy Spirit to lead believers in seeking His own glory.

How is God the Father is to be honoured by? Do note the standard of judgment raised.

John 5:22For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: 23That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

Did Jesus forget about the Holy Spirit? No. Of course not. Look again.

John 13:31Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him. 32If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him.

God the Father is glorified in the Son. Again:

John 17:1These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 4I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. 5And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

God the Father is glorified in the Son for answered prayers:

John 14:13And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Why is the Holy Spirit leading believers to focus on the Son? Look at what is declared to be the mind of Christ that believers are to have in worship.

Philippians 2:5Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

The name of Jesus is above every other name:

Could there be another reason? God is reconciling the world to Himself through His Son: there are sinners that seek after familiar spirits and worship spirits like the American Indians do towards the Great Spirit: dancing and chanting for the Great Spirit to come as the reason they were given to alcohol is because it reminded them when they were in commune with the Great Spirit as having a spirit of drunkenness.

God is calling sinners away from focussing on their spirits to a personal relationship with Him through the Son. The only way to keep their practises out is to keep their eyes on the Son and that is Whom the indwelling Holy Spirit is still pointing believers to go to as the scriptures do as well: That is why Jesus said this:

John 14:6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 7If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

The work of iniquity that Jesus says to wayward believers is that He never knew them: was because they broadened the way in approaching God the Father in prayer and in worship and in relating to Him. Matthew 7:13-27 & Luke 13:24-30

By climbing up another way: by broadening the way: the definition of antichrist is "instead of Christ" and many are not being chaste in their relationship with the Bridegroom. John 10:1-9

What specific instructions that would denounce singing about Trinity as if that is the name God the Father is glorified by?

John 3:16Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. 17And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

So if we look at the role of the Holy Spirit by the scripture: we know then that the Holy Spirit is not to be worshipped with the Father and the Son since He is in us leading us to honour, worship, and glorify the God the Father through the Son as it is the name of Jesus that really is above every other name.

May God cause the increase as to why the creeds among other things.. should be dropped as scripture and the indwelling Holy Spirit would lead us to do in honouring the Son and thereby honouring the Father.

 

[francisdesales]

Francis

I see you forgot you're on a Protestant forum. Evangelical and Fundamentalist type Protestants. Protestants that believe like Webb, "The Bible ONLY makes Christians Only." The Catholic view that the Church makes Christians is believed, but not acknowledged in as strict a sense as the Catholic Church. You really need to realize that, and I should think you would have already got the picture having been on the forum for five years. I've been here only a couple months and I got the picture, being as much an outcast in the sense that what I believe isn't quite the same as everyone else here.

FC

"FC",

I haven't forgotten where I am, thanks. I am very well aware of where I stand here...

My comment is an attempt to discuss this very issue of the fallacy of sola scriptura, which most do not even think about, accepting it out of hand as a sacred cow, while not realizing that the very "doctrine" is found nowhere in Scriptures - so we have a self-defeating belief.

Believe it or not, there are some people out there who may read a post and say "hey, maybe he's right, this doesn't make sense and is not in the Bible". If not, there is no point in posting here at all, except as a pulpit for every "popette" who stylizes themselves as somehow led by the Spirit, while for 2000 years, the Spirit was on vacation while said Protester has suddenly been given the "revelation"...

If that's the case, the Mod's can let me know and I will promptly leave this site, I am not about to waste my time talking to the wall.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I was formerly of the Presbyterian church, but no more. I still follow Jesus Christ by His grace and by His help as He is my Good Shepherd as well as my Saviour.

All man-made creed should be dropped. Ecumenical creeds are such that any having an agreement with the Roman Catholic Church.

In any event, 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 rebukes any God fearing church from reciting such creeds when it is being done in an ecumenical format with the RCC. There can be no agreement with the RCC.

First, all beliefs, whether expressed in a creed for community belief or not, are from man, to include you, my friend... Everything you believe is your set of beliefs - so if we drop ecumenical creeds based on them being from "man", then we ALL must have no beliefs at all.


Secondly, 2 Cor 6 has nothing to do with ecumenical creeds, that's your own creed oozing into the Scriptures and overthrowing them...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I am not discussing Catholic doctrine nor explaining by Catholic doctrines why there can be no agreement with the RCC.

I am stating plainly that the creeds which was done in ecumenical format as uniting the churches goes against the scriptures in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.

Making such statements that there can be no agreement with the "RCC" can only be taken in an offensive manner. Numerous Christians congregations believe in that the Nicene Creed states their community's beliefs, not just Catholics. That's as simple as I can put it.

Regards

 

[jasoncran]

the arguments against a creed is really silly.

i believe in the bible and what it says. that if a church pastor says that is a creed.
creed as defined.

1. A formal statement of religious belief; a confession of faith.
2. A system of belief, principles, or opinions: laws banning discrimination on the basis of race or creed; an architectural creed that demanded simple lines.

please continue to undermine your position.

 

[francisdesales]

Seeing how the creeds were formed of old to have an "agreement" with a church from which the other churches were "protesting from":

It is amazing how little so many "Protestants" know about history... You have no clue what the development of doctrine is... Creeds are not about making agreements with other churches!

As for any Catholic brother or sister: this truth is known that they are still my brother and sister. 2 Thessalonians 3:1-7,14-15 but there is a call to withdraw and seperate to stand for the faith in Jesus Christ.

Another crazy notion. Withdraw from the Church, established by Jesus Christ, built upon the apostles. Clearly, you have no idea about WHAT we are called to withdraw FROM - it CERTAINLY is not to withdraw from a Church, nor any denomination - that's not the intent of such passages. Men are called to withdraw from the ways of the world and modern culture, not the Church where men find Jesus Christ!!!

Creeds were done as an ecumenical agreement: not as representing a believer.

Oh boy...

Catholic creeds are designed to explain what WE believe as Catholics, not about any agreement with other denominations! This goes back to your poor knowledge of church history. The Catholic Church was not making an agreement of peace with the Arians when they said

"God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, one in Being with the Father"

for the sake of maintaining some quasi status quo!!! It was to express OUR BELIEFS to the world. THIS is what we believe, as a community and as individuals. THIS is truth. Those who claim otherwise (jesus is not God, according to the Arians) are wrong, following after false preachers. The Church has been given authority by God to make such proclamations for the express purpose of maintaining the faith once given by the Apostles and that people would not be drawn away after false prophets...

In addition, the creed begins "we" or "I". In either case, the first person, the one who is reciting it, is indeed counting THAT CREED as part of HIS OWN belief!!!


Regards

 

[Former Christian]

Enow

Sorry, but I do not represent any denomenation. It is by His grace and His help that I am representing Jesus Christ as He helps me to keep the faith which is the good fight.
Don’t be sorry. You’re heading in the right direction in my opinion.


“Hence the creeds are ecumenicalâ€

Some are ecumenical, “promoting or relating to unity among the world's Christian Churches†(Oxford Dictionary).

Most are denominational, “relating to or according to the principles of a particular religious denomination†(Oxford Dictionary).

Paul speaks about divisions within single ekklesia. The denominationalism that is evident in Christianity goes way beyond that.


“I forgive you if you are offended.â€

Got that a little backward don’t ya? You ask the offended for forgiveness. Then it’s up to the offended to forgive. However, from what you said after, I think you were trying to say that any way.


“Which by seeing the current trend: some churches are forgetting what seperates them from other denomenations.â€

I see you’ve been affected by more than just denominationalism. But by ecumenism as well. There is a decided difference between the two. But on the other hand, one leads to the other. Denominationalism emphasizes truth, the truth of the denomination. The modern Ecumenical Movement is a reaction, wherein most of what was considered truth, isn’t considered essential truth anymore.

I suppose that my view that we are intended to keep the unity of the Spirit rather than the unity of “the doctrineâ€, would be perceived as another version of ecumenism. But it isn’t the same at all. In my view it would be better if those who are in Christ would forget what separates them, and remember, indeed emphasize, that they are one in Christ through the one Holy Spirit.

Creeds are primarily for uniting a denomination. The simpler the creed, the probability is that more will be united. A reasonable approach. But the thinking is still denominational because doctrine is still at the center. If one is determined to have a creed, the Bible is a sufficient creed. No other creed is necessary. But I actually believe that the Bible can’t be a creed. Simply because it isn’t the tool of man. It’s the tool of God. A tool used by Jesus Christ through the Spirit to teach man about real reality. Creeds are the creation of man as a tool of man. A creed is primarily a man-made tool used to distinguish between denominations.


“Creeds were done as an ecumenical agreement: not as representing a believer.
Hymnals were not done to for an ecumenical agreement.â€

I’ve noticed that it’s harder for people to give up their hymnals than it is for them to give up their creeds. And it’s very hard for people to give up their creeds. Yet they both are man-made. No reason to give up one if the other one isn’t going to be given up. Surely you know that Israel got into a lot of trouble because they wouldn’t reject everything of Baal worship. You cant be separate if you aren’t going to give up all of that which your supposed to be separating yourself from.


Let me check with you. Do you believe that the Trinity is an essential doctrine?

FC

 

[Webb]

Human creeds continue in their attempt to undermine the authority of Jesus Christ.

 

[Former Christian]

Francis

"My comment is an attempt to discuss this very issue of the fallacy of sola scriptura, which most do not even think about, accepting it out of hand as a sacred cow, while not realizing that the very "doctrine" is found nowhere in Scriptures - so we have a self-defeating belief. "

The Catholics have their own sacred cow in their Church. You want to talk about sacred cows? Seems like a waste of time to me. Both sides believe in the Bible and in the Church. What's the big deal? The really big deal is that both sides are determined to continue in division against the express desires of Christ. And both sides will continue to feed their respective sacred cows to continue in division.

FC

 

[Webb]

I'm not sure at all about "both sides believe the Bible". Professing to believe and what one teaches can be 2 different things.

 

[Former Christian]

Webb

I'm only going by their claim and not by the doctrines they interpretively believe in relation to that claim. Both sides claim they believe the Bible. Both sides claim they believe in the Church. It's relative to each other. As far as their concerned, since I don't believe as they do doctrinally, I don't believe in anything but my own imaginations. Doesn't really matter to me since I'm no longer a part of their mess anyway.

FC

 

[Enow]

First, all beliefs, whether expressed in a creed for community belief or not, are from man, to include you, my friend... Everything you believe is your set of beliefs - so if we drop ecumenical creeds based on them being from "man", then we ALL must have no beliefs at all.

Deferring from the fact of why the creeds were created in the first place will not win your argument.

Secondly, 2 Cor 6 has nothing to do with ecumenical creeds, that's your own creed oozing into the Scriptures and overthrowing them...

Regards

It has everything to do with it: a creed used to unifying all the churches is one of making an agreement with all the churches even though they acknowledge the reasons for that seperation. 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 refutes that practise.