Why Ecumenical Creeds Should Be Dropped

[francisdesales]

Francis

ditto, what Webb said


Reba

I apologize for my part in your accusation. I have a personal law that is never argue with a Catholic. I have a similar law about Calvinists. Neither can even understand what I believe, let alone argue against it.

FC,

Perhaps the reason "they" cannot understand what you believe is because you contradict yourself. You said you don't "peruse" what you previously wrote. Perhaps you may consider proof-reading before posting?

Understandable since what I believe is so different from there own beliefs. I should have never broken my own law.

No doubt the Moderators can come up with a suitable punishment or fine for you!

:biglol

Take care

 

[Webb]

I would have preferred to continue with the thread as it existed. It is reaffirming to have ones faith tested.

 

[francisdesales]

I would have preferred to continue with the thread as it existed. It is reaffirming to have ones faith tested.

If we are able to discuss this without bringing up Catholicism, I am open to continuing.

Regards

 

[Webb]

How would that be possible?

 

[reba]

Webb polite careful wording. :yes

 

[Mike]

I would have preferred to continue with the thread as it existed. It is reaffirming to have ones faith tested.

How would that be possible?

As reba said...

Discussion of Catholic doctrine will be allowed in the One on One Debate Forum and End Times forum only. RCC content in the End Times forum should relate to End Times beliefs. Do not start new topics elsewhere or sway existing threads toward a discussion or debate that is Catholic in nature.


From post 1 this has been an anti Catholic thread. I will give ya all some time to figure out what you want to do or where you want me to place this thread. Any suggestions?

As new members come, it seems we have to repeat the process of reacquainting them of this ToS. We can't make any clearer, I believe. If you want to continue this thread, it should be about the creeds, and it shouldn't have to do with the doctrinal differences of the Catholic church. This thread gave only a small hint of the tension that arose when this ToS was not in place.

Either the One-on-One Debates or End Times (having to do with End Times). Not any other Forum.

Thank you.

 

[Free]

How would that be possible?

To add to what the other two mods have stated, the Creeds are not just used by the RCC, although there may be some difference in understanding, as has been discussed. They are used by many different streams of Christianity, so there is no need to focus on the RCC; focus on the content of the Creeds.

 

[francisdesales]

To add to what the other two mods have stated, the Creeds are not just used by the RCC, although there may be some difference in understanding, as has been discussed. They are used by many different streams of Christianity, so there is no need to focus on the RCC; focus on the content of the Creeds.

Agreed. The topic is on why creeds, any creed, is "offensive". I don't think it is necessary to dwell on catholicism here, because as I said, many classic Reformers use creeds as well (whether Nicene or not). It seems the only argument advanced so far is :

1. It's not in the Bible
2. People have a tendency to stray from the Creed (which is not really anything against creeds anyways...)

Perhaps Webb can better explain why Creeds, any creed, is bad in organizations, whether religious or otherwise?

Regards

 

[Free]

Agreed. The topic is on why creeds, any creed, is "offensive". I don't think it is necessary to dwell on catholicism here, because as I said, many classic Reformers use creeds as well (whether Nicene or not). It seems the only argument advanced so far is :

1. It's not in the Bible
2. People have a tendency to stray from the Creed (which is not really anything against creeds anyways...)

Perhaps Webb can better explain why Creeds, any creed, is bad in organizations, whether religious or otherwise?

Regards

I think another argument, related to your point 1, is that it is even anti-biblical, as though something in them contradicts Scripture. But I don't think evidence has yet been produced.

We've both said it, and perhaps others, that they are core Christian beliefs, summed up in a way to make them easy to memorize. So I cannot see how they can be a bad thing (filioque controversy aside ;) ).

 

[reba]

Often we site the Ten Commandments in 'short' form.

I kinda thought creeds were about the same.

I have heard folks say John 3 16 ya know... Not quoting the verse just the reference. The Scriptures were not written in verses.

 

[Former Christian]

Webb

I tried to post an answer to

“Will you please provide the scriptiure of scriptures which teach that Peteris the rock upon which the church is built?â€

on your message thingy and got this message:

The following errors occurred with your submission
The text that you have entered is too long (6830 characters). Please shorten it to 1000 characters long.

Strange, because I’ve sent messages to others at least as long as this one with no problem.

I can’t post it here because it mentions Catholicism. Ironically, it’s an answer that Francis would agree with. And I don’t feel like editing it.

I hated to waste an answer, but I guess you’re fated to never see it.

Sorry

FC

 

[francisdesales]

I think another argument, related to your point 1, is that it is even anti-biblical, as though something in them contradicts Scripture. But I don't think evidence has yet been produced.

We've both said it, and perhaps others, that they are core Christian beliefs, summed up in a way to make them easy to memorize. So I cannot see how they can be a bad thing (filioque controversy aside ;) ).

Agree, for the newly baptized, specifically. However, when we witness a baptism, we also recall our own promises and proclaim our own beliefs again. Seems to be part of human nature, to reaffirm what we find most compelling in our hearts. If I get some time, I'll have to do a bit of research into pre-Nicene rules of faith (that's what creeds were called in the first and second century).

I have no idea why a creed would be "anti-biblical"! Stating "we believe in one God" could hardly be considered "anti-biblical".

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Webb

I tried to post an answer to

“Will you please provide the scriptiure of scriptures which teach that Peteris the rock upon which the church is built?â€

on your message thingy and got this message:

The following errors occurred with your submission
The text that you have entered is too long (6830 characters). Please shorten it to 1000 characters long.

Strange, because I’ve sent messages to others at least as long as this one with no problem.

I can’t post it here because it mentions Catholicism. Ironically, it’s an answer that Francis would agree with. And I don’t feel like editing it.

I hated to waste an answer, but I guess you’re fated to never see it.

Sorry

FC

That is strange, as the max length is 10000, not 1000.

If you are worried about the subject matter, perhaps you could post it in the "debate" section for Webb. People can discuss Catholicism more freely there.

Regards

 

[Webb]

Good morning FormerChristian:

All I really asked for was a scripture or scriptures one Peter being the "rock" upon which the church was built. I seldom read long posts.

 

[Former Christian]

Webb

Oh. Thought you wanted a real answer. Don't think there are other Scriptures that mention it. Doesn't matter then. Maybe Francis knows better than I. The matter of creeds does depend on one's understanding of the Church. Or the ekklesia, as in my case.

FC

 

[mondar]

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.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Where do people come up with this stuff from?

Sounds like the hard-line Campbellite Church of Christ mindset.

 

[Webb]

I am a member of the church of Christ. Can you show one thing Campbell taught that the churches of Christ teach that is not scriptural???

 

[Free]

That's for another topic.

totopic

 

[Elijah674]

Matt.23 Has ONE CREED seen in True Doctrine says Christ! The problem was what? You sort out your own creed as for Truth First + 'working faith' being done. The simple Ecumenical thought 'alone' violates all ealse per/Rev. 17:1-5 Babylonial Truth!

[1] Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
[2] Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
[3] All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.




Rev. 18

[1] And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. (Latter Rain!)
[2] And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
[3] Forall nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

[4] And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
[5] For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.