Enow
"All man-made creed should be dropped. Ecumenical creeds are such that any having an agreement with the Roman Catholic Church."
That's a pretty Protestant thing to say. No wonder Francis is offended.
Hello Former Christian,
I think your post is generally a good post concerning creeds. I liked it. The only issue I would differ on is when you said "That's a pretty Protestant thing to say." Maybe your right. Some of the old time Protestants were used some harsh language for Roman Catholics. They used to say that the Pope was the anti-Christ, and stuff like that. It is now embarrassing. But Protestants and Catholics were still shooting at each other when that language was used. I don't think such offensive language is being used so much by protestants except by the Jack Chick kind of Fundamentalists. I guess you could define a "protestant" as anyone not Catholic. But then we get tagged with responsibility for JWs, Mormons, and lot of others. I agree with the spirit of your statement, that Enow was talking smack to Roman Catholics. I am just not sure that as a protestant, I want to be included in the spirit of his statement.
I don't know that I ever articulated the issue of creeds exactly as you did, but I have long recognized the truth of what you said. Groups that deny creeds actually do have their own oral creeds that function in the same way many historic written creeds function. Could we call that oral creed a "tradition?" It is a tradition passed down orally?
IMO the anti-creed fundamentalist groups functioning on the basis of an oral creed are really giving a slightly different twist to authority issues than mainstream protestantism. I think someone closer to my own point of view tagged them with the label "solo scriptura." Would it be fair to classify them as a part of the solo scriptura way of thinking (as opposed to sola scriptura)? What do you think? What I mean by the term solo scriptura is they view the scripture as the only authority, as opposed to others who might say that the scriptures is the only infallible and inerrant authority (sola).
But I agree about creeds. Their purpose is basically to summarize a particular part of what is commonly believed, but disputed by a segment. When it becomes authoritative, it becomes as authoritative as the Bible itself.
I am not sure what you mean by the above part of your post. You say "when it becomes authoritative." OK, I personally would agree that the creeds are authoritative statements. I would not call them inerrant, but would definitely agree that they have an authority. Then you add... "authoritative as the bible itself," I would take a different view. I am no expert on the Church Fathers. Nevertheless, how much did Augustine quote Nicea against the Arians? He would have quoted scripture. I myself might quote 2nd Orange against someone I thought leans toward Pelagianism. I think Orange is authoritative, but not infallible as is the scripture.
Believing as you do about the Bible, creeds can become more of a hindrance to unity than a support of it. There are some groups that don't have creeds, written creeds, that is. But they have creeds nevertheless. The Churches of Christ are as against creeds as you and Webb are. But they have an oral creed that's as authoritative to them as any written creed. The common hymnal, not being a part of the Bible, is nevertheless a form of creed, with the same kind of authority. I call hymnals the second Bible.
Interesting. Our Church uses a "Trinity" hymnal. That hymnal is a curious thing. There are two versions. One for Presbyterians, and one for Baptists. The only difference is that the Presby one has the Westminster Confession in the back, and the Baptist one has the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. Oddly enough, in our Church, we are Baptists, but we use the Presbyterian version anyway. The Hymnal has a few Hymns that have words that we do not agree with, but each of those Hymns has the words changed to reflect our theology. I think you are right. They Hymnal in our Church is an excellent expression of our theology and serves close to the same purpose as a creed. In fact, a creed is found in the back of our hymnal.
On the other hand, calling it a 2nd Bible is not quite exactly what we are doing. If someone were to challenge a statement in one of the hymns, there might be some discussion. In the discussion we would measure the statement of the hymn to see if it properly reflected what we believe the scripture teaches. So then, the hymnal would be an authority, but it would not be the final inerrant authority.
All we have to do is say "I believe thus and so", and voila, a creed is formed, even though it's a personal creed. And when it becomes authoritative to a group of followers, voila, a denomination is born based on a creed. I don't think that as long as Christians are under the influence of denominational thinking, Christianity will ever be any more than it is. A group of communities each with it's own creed. Since my creed is different than any creed in Christianity, I'm a
Former Christian
I am not sure what you mean in this paragraph. Its a little hard to understand. Forgive me if I do not get it right. I notice you first say "All we have to do is say...." Who is the "we?"
The issue of the existence of creeds and denominations is actually quite complex. Such groups as the Orthodox Presbyterians and the Presbyterian Church in America left the United Presbyterians Church because they felt the UPC departed from historic orthodoxy and also from the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Orthodox Presby's were a part of the Machen departure. In the case of these two denominations, the creed existed before the denomination. So those groups would have followed the order you suggested... creed and then denomination. Also, both those groups would see the Westminster Confession as "authoritative" but they would never view it as equal to the Bible. On the other hand, in the 1600s, when the Westminster confession was written, there were groups of denominations already in existence (Puritans). Many of them existed within the Church of England, some existed outside the Church of England. The Westminster Confession was written merely to express the theology of those denominations. The Confession was the result of the denomination, not the cause.
Your last statement is humorous. I hope you do not mind the smile. It is not intended to be nasty. Yet when I seriously consider what you said... the fact that your creed is different then mine does not make you a former Christian. Maybe your not a Christian, we don't know each other. But if your not a Christian, it is not because you have a different creed.
totopic