Why Ecumenical Creeds Should Be Dropped

[Enow]

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

And as simply as I can state it: 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 refutes churches for using such creeds.

 

[Enow]

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.

Then study the origin of how the Nicene creed and the Apostles' creed came about, and you will see that it was being used as an ecumenical tool of unifying the churches together. I cannot see how 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 does not apply.

 

[Free]

Then study the origin of how the Nicene creed and the Apostles' creed came about, and you will see that it was being used as an ecumenical tool of unifying the churches together. I cannot see how 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 does not apply.

Those Creeds are summations of core Christian doctrines, designed for easy memorization.

: I have no idea how 2 Cor 6:14-18 has any bearing on this.

 

[Enow]

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!

And yet you had posted in the same post:

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

Thanks for proving my point. And Protestants are using the Catholic creeds.

 

[Enow]

“I forgive you if you are offended.”

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.

That was in response to your quote:

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

Moving onward:

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.

The idea of just following the crowd: doing what you have been raised up to do always is being called into question because of the scripture. Reciting creeds that have no basis for being in any church as if the creeds commend ourselves by the letter. Even hymnals that goe against scripture are to be examine and discerned.

We just can't follow routines anymore when God calls each church in Revelation to examine themselves to be ready for the Bridegroom when He comes.

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

FC

I believe in the Triune God: I do not believe the Trinity doctrine should be used as a validation of worshipping the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son when the role of the Holy Spirit as scripture confirms declares that the Holy Spirit in believers would lead us to honour the Son by testifying of the Son in seeking the glory of the Son and thereby the Father as well. It is the name of Jesus that is above every other name to the glory of God the Father: not the name of the "Trinity". God the Father is not glorified nor honoured in that way except through the Son.

 

[Mike]

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

I see you're a man who's convinced he has perfected interpretation and has come, not to grow, but to demand that others grow to where you are at. I've been quietly watching with shock and awe. Fascinating. I feel like I'm 5 years old at my father's feet again.

This is rather simplistic, but I'm sure you made this error with a much deeper end goal. When catholic is spelled with a small "c", it is referencing the universal body of believes who claim Christ. The Catholics use a upper case C when they use the word in their creed to refer to the RCC.

There I said it. Mom told me not to kick hornets nests, but I'm not afraid anymore.

We recite that Apostles Creed at church, because we hold them to be truisms which summarize the core tenets of our faith. It is in no way intended to bridge a gulf between our church and others.

Enow, since you were born of the Spirit, have you had times when you have come to understand that you had something wrong. Have you ever had to adjust your beliefs on any matters?

 

[francisdesales]

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.

Yea, count Paul among those with that "sacred cow", who calls the Church the pillar and foundation of the truth, where the Spirit of God dwells...

It is what it is. Christ left mankind a Church with authority to bind and loosen for all Christians who choose to obey Christ - see Luke 10:16... The Church is the Body of Christ. Do you dispute that? You believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and there it is. Do you? i don't know. People claim they do, but then they conveniently ignore such authoritarian statements because it offends their "
subjective individuality". If the "church of one" makes them feel warm and fuzzy, whatever, I guess.

Regards

 

[Former Christian]

Enow

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

I believe in the Triune God: I do not believe the Trinity doctrine should be used as a validation of worshipping the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son when the role of the Holy Spirit as scripture confirms declares that the Holy Spirit in believers would lead us to honour the Son by testifying of the Son in seeking the glory of the Son and thereby the Father as well. It is the name of Jesus that is above every other name to the glory of God the Father: not the name of the "Trinity". God the Father is not glorified nor honoured in that way except through the Son."


An interesting answer that didn't answer the question. Do you believe the doctrine of the Trinity, or Triune God as you call it, is an essential doctrine?

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Francis

"Yea, count Paul among those with that "sacred cow", who calls the Church the pillar and foundation of the truth, where the Spirit of God dwells... "



All depends on how you understand the verse. If it's understood to refer to the universal Church, then what you say is true.

However if it's understood in its context to be referring to a local Church (1 Tim 1:3), then this verse takes on a different meaning. Wherein the foundation of the truth refers to God himself as the foundation of truth, not the Church.

And don't even try to voice your opinion in so many words that this is a stupid interpretation. I know by now that it is your way. Besides we're getting off topic once again. Believe in your own sacred cow if you must. Don't bother me with it.

FC

 

[Nick]

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."

I am Sydney Anglican. Don't confuse it with the less-than-Biblical approach these days by the global Church of England. The Sydney Diocese is more lower evangelical. We don't have a liturgy/prayer book. Usually a few times a year we will say a creed, generally for unification. Other times we may sometimes read a psalm together, but (the congregaton I attend) is not very traditional.

 

[Nick]

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.

"If the Bible is #1, why do we need a #2?"
Well of course all we need is the Bible. But, sometimes it is good to summarise what we believe are the "core" beliefs of a Christian. I think you will find that most denominational differences are not on the basis of different ideas on creeds, which state the fundabmental Christian beliefs, but in fact on other issues, such as Baptism, liturgy, role of the priest, etc.

I would say that generally, creeds to a reasonable job in summarising what pretty much all Christians should agree upon, based on one's interpretation of the Bible. Which begs the question, why have a Statement of Faith or a denominational or doctrinal statement for a person or group? That can be interpreted however you like as well. So can the Bible, evidently. Context is important. BTW as I'm sure you know, there is an RC version of the Apostle's Creed.

Taken as a man-made summary or statement of belief from the Bible, I don't see a problem with creeds, generaly. Of course, the Bible needs to have more weight.

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

The Body of Christ, I believe to be the "holy catholic church", in a spiritual sense. Note that by catholic I mean universal, not Roman Catholic.

I've met loads of Christians with differening doctrinal views than myself but we still are united in Christ, which is what I think the "holy catholic church" is talking about.

 

[Nick]

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

No, I'm sure the Apostles themselves did not make up the creed. So what? I believe it to be a Biblical creed. So do many many others.

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

I'm not sure creeds are designed to guard against error, but more so a statement of belief that is easy to memorise and recite.

The early Christians did not have the New Testament in one volume like we do today. It is a different situation.

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.

I'm not so sure 2 Cor 3:1-6 is talking about creeds, or if its, I believe it is warning against them becoming a priority. I don't see a conflict here if a creed is inspired by the Bible and has its proper place as below the Bible.

#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.

I have no idea why catholic is being capitalised in your former Presbyterian church. I believe it should not be capitalised. Some versions change catholic to universal. I don't have a problem with that either.

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.

Perhaps there wasn't a need for the early church to create one? I don't believe your 2 Cor passage is against creeds per say.

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

I'll try and get to your two posts about that later. But I don't think I'm going to debate the creeds themselves, rather I was just popping into this thread because I was frustrated that there was such an overwhelming negatrive attitude towards creeds in general.

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

Exactly!

 

[Enow]

I see you're a man who's convinced he has perfected interpretation and has come, not to grow, but to demand that others grow to where you are at.

I am not sure where I had stated nor implied that I was such a man that had perfect interpretation. And how can we grow except through the word?

Did not God acknowledge the seven churches as being His in Revelation? And yet there was some insistence on His part to prune so that they may be ready for the Bridegroom when He comes.

We recite that Apostles Creed at church, because we hold them to be truisms which summarize the core tenets of our faith. It is in no way intended to bridge a gulf between our church and others.

2 Corinthians 6:14-18 addresses any agreement that can be shared by those that oppose themselves in according to the faith. There is a call for seperation, not just in the eyes of the world, but in the eyes of God. Just because one church says the creed with a small c does not negate the use of the term as capitalized by the same creed which makes the creed more theirs than not as representing them.

Consider this: why use the term catholic at all? Why use the term to mean universal? Why have the "church" capitalized as if implying that there is one that many in this present day is declaring that this is the "Church"?

And have you noticed how believers can say it out of habit now without thinking about what is said? I remember one Sunday that a preacher had to go over the creed just to awaken the congregation to what was being said habitually.

Fact is: creed is a man-made practise not endorsed by scripture for believers to do at all. They have a way of coming off as if the believers are trying to commend themselves by the letter of an oral creed.

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.

So not only are we using the creeds to commend ourselves: but we are stating it in an idle and habitual manner with those that use the same creed but oppose themselves in regards to the faith: and indeed: they can use that creed to strengthen themselves in their wickedness as being the "Church".
Matthew 12:36But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

We are called to stand apart as a witness of our faith to the world, to each other, to those that oppose themselves, and to God. We cannot speak the same thing as those that err in the world does speak.

1 John 4:5They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. 6We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. 7Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

Love for those that do not know Him and love for our erring brothers & sisters in regards to the faith requires us to stand apart for the faith. Keeping the faith is the good fight: so is keeping our witness as unspotted from the world by His grace and by His help.

James 1:27Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Enow, since you were born of the Spirit, have you had times when you have come to understand that you had something wrong. Have you ever had to adjust your beliefs on any matters?

That is the whole point of the OP: to give pause, to take the matter to Jesus in prayer, discern by His words, examine the state of our witness and our love for others to know the truth. Every believer is called to do that: just as every church are too. Only God can show why believers should adjust their practises to line up with their beliefs so that their light may shine better to the world around them.

 

[Mike]

That is the whole point of the OP: to give pause, to take the matter to Jesus in prayer, discern by His words, examine the state of our witness and our love for others to know the truth. Every believer is called to do that: just as every church are too. Only God can show why believers should adjust their practises to line up with their beliefs so that their light may shine better to the world around them.

You didn't answer the main question. Have you changed your belief or understanding on anything in your faith since being brought to faith? Have you been Led to conclude that you had been wrong on anything? I'm not asking you for specifics. A simple yes or no would even do.

Thanks

 

[Enow]

Enow

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

I believe in the Triune God: I do not believe the Trinity doctrine should be used as a validation of worshipping the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son when the role of the Holy Spirit as scripture confirms declares that the Holy Spirit in believers would lead us to honour the Son by testifying of the Son in seeking the glory of the Son and thereby the Father as well. It is the name of Jesus that is above every other name to the glory of God the Father: not the name of the "Trinity". God the Father is not glorified nor honoured in that way except through the Son."


An interesting answer that didn't answer the question. Do you believe the doctrine of the Trinity, or Triune God as you call it, is an essential doctrine?

FC

Yes; essential as for the knowledge of Triune God.

I had acknowledge the Trinity doctrine: but I expounded by declaring that the Trinity doctrine cannot be used to validate worshipping the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son.

Indeed: if you examine the Trinity doctrine: that errant practise is not inferred.

However: the Nicene creed does along with some unscriptural hymnals: some even singling out the Holy Spirit as being the sole focus of that hymn and worship.

And yet the name of Jesus is above every other name: and the role of the Holy Spirit would never lead a believer to testify of the Holy Spirit in such a way in seeking His glory when the Holy Spirit in them in according to the scriptures is sent to testify of the Son in seeking His glory and thereby the glory of God the Father.

 

[Webb]

Seems to me all this fuss about creeds underscore what I've said about Creeds. They are confusing and divisive. Only the NT can bring about the unity for which Jesus prayed in Jn.17. Again, the Bible only makes Christians only.

 

[Enow]

You didn't answer the main question. Have you changed your belief or understanding on anything in your faith since being brought to faith? Have you been Led to conclude that you had been wrong on anything? I'm not asking you for specifics. A simple yes or no would even do.

Thanks

Yes:

And when you have been corrected: and thus have been given a talent: do you bury it or invest it so that others may gain "interest" from it?

I have said the creeds, because I was taught to say them, but with the falling away from the faith occurring in the churches along with the ecumenical drive: it's time to prune to stand apart for the faith. And the creeds are not the only thing that needs pruning.

 

[Former Christian]

One nice thing about forums is that you can reveal what you really believe without fear of repercussions. I mean nice in the sense that one can get things off the chest once in awhile. I don’t mean there won’t be opposition. I mean it has no real effect on one’s personal life. Even if the monitors finally think that what is believed is too far afield to continue on the forum, it has no real effect on your personal life. There’s always the next forum.

Not like attending a gathering of a Christian community where anything you say might result in repercussions.

Christianity is a man-made religion. So I tend to point out things that are obviously man-made in that religion. But I don’t get serious about it. It may appear so at times, but not really. It isn’t worth the effort to be serious on a forum where the majority have already determined that the man-made is supposed to be part of the experience of a supernatural God. Proven to them to be so because of the existence of a collection of writings claimed to be of supernatural source, but used as the writings of men. Proven to them by the natural surroundings of the universe that appear to them to point to the existence and nature of the supernatural.

I feel sorry for people who get serious about it and think they can change the unchangeable. And I feel sorry for people who try to convert you to their denomination or denominational thinking because they seriously think it’s the true expression of the supernatural. A way of thinking that isn’t limited to the door knockers. They don’t realize that nothing has really changed in Christianity for centuries. Only the names have been changed. The denominational thinking is the same, and the man-made elements in the man-made religion is the same.

The Bible will continue to be interpreted showing that it’s considered in practicality to be just a collection of man-made writings. Hymns will continue to be written and sung as if God himself wrote them. Sermons and homilies will continue to be given and believed as if Jesus himself taught them. Creeds will continue to be expressions of essential beliefs and believed as if they’re as inspired as the Bible itself. Which in Christianity they are, simply because they are interpretations believed to be what the Bible says.

It’s like the song says,

And the beat goes on, the beat goes on
Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain

I grew tired of hearing the drums. And since I’ve become a former Christian, the sound is far off in the distance, when I hear it at all.

FC

 

[francisdesales]

Francis

"Yea, count Paul among those with that "sacred cow", who calls the Church the pillar and foundation of the truth, where the Spirit of God dwells... "



All depends on how you understand the verse. If it's understood to refer to the universal Church, then what you say is true.

However if it's understood in its context to be referring to a local Church (1 Tim 1:3), then this verse takes on a different meaning. Wherein the foundation of the truth refers to God himself as the foundation of truth, not the Church.

And don't even try to voice your opinion in so many words that this is a stupid interpretation.

Don't even try to voice my opinion. Typical words from a self-proclaimed relativist, how ironic.

I wouldn't say your interpretation is stupid, but perhaps ridiculous would be better. It makes no sense with the rest of Scriptures.

It implies that the Spirit of God is only sent to one local church, and THAT one is the only one that is the pillar and foundation of the truth. A bit wacky... Paul wrote to the Corinthians along the same lines as he did to Timothy - that the Spirit inhabits the Church as a BODY. Now, if the Spirit is the Spirit of truth, it follows that His inhabitance within Corinth is of the same nature as where Paul is writing to Timothy. Indeed, the Christ promised that He would send His Spirit to the entire Church, represented by the Apostles seated at the Last Supper.

I am sorry, but your interpretation has no basis in Scriptures. You are really reaching here.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Yes:

And when you have been corrected: and thus have been given a talent: do you bury it or invest it so that others may gain "interest" from it?

I have said the creeds, because I was taught to say them, but with the falling away from the faith occurring in the churches along with the ecumenical drive: it's time to prune to stand apart for the faith. And the creeds are not the only thing that needs pruning.

The Bible says we are the ones to be pruned, not our beliefs or the beliefs of the Church, given to us by Christ.

If there are problems with the holy catholic Church, it is its members, not her doctrines. Reform starts there, among the sinners (which we all are).

This call to end creeds is akin to someone calling to burn the Bible because people aren't reading it and it causes divisiveness among Christians... The problem is people. Look to yourself before you take the hatchet to the Church.

Regards