Why Ecumenical Creeds Should Be Dropped

[Former Christian]

Mondar

“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.â€

I used to belong to one of those denominations. There’s more Protestants that still have this kind of thinking than you know. The Jack Chick type are just more well known and in your face about it. Like the Young Earth Creationists. How much do you hear from the majority of Christians, the ones who believe in Theistic Evolution?


“I guess you could define a "protestant" as anyone not Catholic.â€

I heard an apologist at Catholic answers say that. He numbered the Eastern Orthodox among the Protestants. True in a way. But it involves a redefinition of history that just confuses the issue.


“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.â€

Protestantism is what it is. And Protestantism includes people who don’t believe the Catholics are right. If you don’t want to be included, you can always stop being a Protestant. Not that it’ll make much difference. I’m not a Protestant. But because I don’t believe in following anything or anybody except the Bible as Jesus teaches it to me, I’m considered an adherent of the Protestant idea of Sola Scriptura by those who are unable to distinguish between the Protestant idea and my understanding of the purpose and use of the Bible. And I’m labeled a Protestant anyway.


“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?â€

Perhaps you should talk to Webb who’s a member of the Churches of Christ. They’re Traditionally against using written creeds. And they have a different view concerning music in the Church that you might find interesting. Akin to the idea of the Eastern Church.


“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).â€

“Solo†Scriptura. Haven’t heard that one before. Sola Scriptura only means in it’s historic use that the Bible is the only authority. It was originally used as a counter claim to the authority of the Pope. A replacement of a human authority with a written authority. Perhaps “solo†Scriptura was just a tongue in cheek reference intended as a humorous twist on words.


“When it (a creed) 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.â€

Originally creeds were meant only as guidelines for practical matters referring to individual ekklesia. The creed in Acts 15 about not eating blood and remembering the poor. By the fourth century, the creed was an authoritative doctrinal statement to be held in common by all the Churches. Practical matters became part of Canon Law. It continues that way in Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Protestantism continued creedal doctrinal statements. But I don’t know which Protestant denominations, if any, continued to have Canon Laws. I’m sure most have something comparable.


“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.â€

As a Protestant, you would of necessity have to believe that creeds are subordinate to the Bible, in order not to nullify the idea of Sola Scriptura. Nevertheless, creeds are considered to say the same thing as the Bible, Biblical ideas in summary form. Thus, in practicality, the creeds are equal in authority with the Bible. The same with hymnals. They’re considered songs that are in agreement with the Bible. Thus they are, in practicality, as authoritative as the Bible. The only question I have is: since creeds and hymnals are not actually the written word of God, being out of the mind of man, and the Bible is out of the mind of God, being given through the Spirit, and since Worship Services and Liturgies are intended to be directed toward God with Jesus Christ through the Spirit, then why shouldn’t we use what was given instead of that which is out of the mind of man? The Bible itself is a creed given by God. The Bible contains a perfectly good hymnal in the Psalms. Why do we need more that is actually less?


“I call hymnals the second Bible.â€

I refer to the hymnal as the second Bible because in most Protestant Churches that I’ve been in there is a Bible and a hymnal in holders on the back of each pew. And I don’t think I’ve seen a hymnal that didn’t include a creed appropriate to the denomination. It used to be that Protestants carried their own Bibles and hymnals were in a pile at the back of the Church for those who needed them. Was still that way in the first Church I attended.

I find it interesting that the more modern practice has carried over to the Catholic Church, sometime after Vatican II. They used to carry missals that had everything necessary for the Mass within it. So I’ve been told by Catholics who are old enough to remember and I’ve seen it in old films. Like the Protestants carried a Bible, the Catholics carried a Missal. Now they have a Missalette, covers a three month period I think, and a hymnal in holders on the back of each pew. I think it’s a convenience that works well for Protestants and Catholics alike. I wonder how this convenience has affected the sale of Bibles and Missals?


“The issue of the existence of creeds and denominations is actually quite complex.â€

I don’t think it’s complex at all. The history of creeds and denominations is pretty straightforward. But I do agree with you that sometimes, when a division is over minor doctrinal issues or over practical issues, the one dividing will continue to use the creed of the Church they divided from, rather than create their own creed.


“Since my creed is different than any creed in Christianity, I'm a
Former Christian
Your last statement is humorous.â€

Wasn’t meant to be. I’m a former Christian for what are to me serious reasons. One is, I have certain beliefs (considered by most to be a private creed) that fit no creed of any denomination of Christianity. And in that sense, I fit in nowhere in Christianity. And I’m not one to believe something just because a denominational organization or an individual says I should believe it.

I try not to repeat my mistakes. And I made the mistake of believing a Christian denominational organization only once, the first Church I attended. Fortunately, it wasn’t a life-long mistake. After a period of time, I was given a choice between following the denomination or following what Jesus was teaching me through the Bible. I chose the latter. Consequently, I was led to see the true nature of Christianity as a man-made religion; and how the term “Christianâ€, not only was never intended to be a denotation of those who are in Christ, but is now fully associated with Christianity. Then I had a choice between being a part of a man-made religion or a practical part of the Body of Christ. I chose the latter.

Out of necessity, I attend a church of a Christian denomination. It was either that or actively seek followers to fulfill the communal aspect of being in Christ. I have no personal charisma that would enable me to gain followers. And the gaining of followers is against what I believe at this point. Nevertheless, I’m not a part of the doctrinal aspect of the church I attend. If they knew what I Believed, I would be subject to their form of closed communion.

I formerly was a part of Christianity. I formerly called myself a Christian. That is no longer true of me. I now just refer to myself as one who is in Christ. That being true, it’s reasonable to assume that I’m a

Former Christian

 

[reba]

Wern't the creeds written up at a time when printing a Bible was like a huge job? Thinking of how much effort went into some of the writings of those OLD guys it seems over whelming. To print up a guide line ,in longhand,? something in maybe a 'shorthand 'form was a great idea for the time... Of course some one some place will find fault we always do...

 

[Webb]

Well Reba we have printing presses small and large and by the millions today so I would think that that excuse for continued creeds todaiy is exhausted.

 

[reba]

Webb that wasn't stated as an excuse just a statement.

 

[elijah23]

2 Corinthians 6:14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. 18And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

The creeds were created as unifying the christian churches, but there can be no agreements with the Roman Catholic Church. Whethor the creeds contain errors or not: the scriptures above rebukes any such " ecumenical agreements".

We read a creed every so often in church, but I’m not aware that people pay that much attention to it.

 

[jasoncran]

in a few more year written bibles and books will be a thing of the past. e books! you laugh, i have seen e-bibles in church.

 

[Nick]

in a few more year written bibles and books will be a thing of the past. e books! you laugh, i have seen e-bibles in church.

E-Creeds!

 

[reba]

:toofunny:toofunny:toofunny

 

[Former Christian]

Good grief. e-creeds. That's all we need. Oh well, life goes on. LOL

FC

 

[jasoncran]

what the e-bible and e-books was serious.shoot the army has three creeds

the nco creed, the soldiers creed and the officers creed. those are to be learned. many dont know them. i am guilty of that. the nco is the most important one of them all. that being said, one could use the e-creed and recite it, instead of paper its downloaded to your machine. i read my bible but i use biblegateway here. so what is the difference?

Posted : Friday, October 07, 2005

No one is more professional than I. I am a Noncommissioned Officer, a leader of soldiers. As a Noncommissioned Officer, I realize that I am a member of a time honored corps, which is known as "The Backbone of the Army". I am proud of the Corps of Noncommissioned Officers and will at all times conduct myself so as to bring credit upon the Corps, the Military Service and my country regardless of the situation in which I find myself. I will not use my grade or position to attain pleasure, profit, or personal safety.
Competence is my watchword. My two basic responsibilities will always be uppermost in my mind -- accomplishment of my mission and the welfare of my soldiers. I will strive to remain technically and tactically proficient. I am aware of my role as a Noncommissioned Officer. I will fulfill my responsibilities inherent in that role. All soldiers are entitled to outstanding leadership; I will provide that leadership. I know my soldiers and I will always place their needs above my own. I will communicate consistently with my soldiers and never leave them uninformed. I will be fair and impartial when recommending both rewards and punishment.
Officers of my unit will have maximum time to accomplish their duties; they will not have to accomplish mine. I will earn their respect and confidence as well as that of my soldiers. I will be loyal to those with whom I serve; seniors, peers, and subordinates alike. I will exercise initiative by taking appropriate action in the absence of orders. I will not compromise my integrity, nor my moral courage. I will not forget, nor will I allow my comrades to forget that we are professionals, Noncommissioned Officers, leaders!​

how many of us had to memorise the gettysburg adress/the preamble to the constitution?

and why do you think that was done?

 

[Nick]

I know you were serious, Jason. I too have seen many people in church get out their iPads or their laptops or even their phone applications to read the Bible during church. I personally prefer "real" books rather than e-books, but I see nothing wrong with e-books, or e-bibles for that matter.

 

[jasoncran]

for me while its mainly a cost thing as e -books and e-machines arent cheap. but with the bible i tend to think that if you assiociate hand and eyes for memorisation it tends to stick more. of course that is how i memorise names in japanese for joint locks.

 

[Free]

Well Reba we have printing presses small and large and by the millions today so I would think that that excuse for continued creeds todaiy is exhausted.

Not at all. What would be easier than to point to the Creeds when someone asks what Christianity's core beliefs are?

Good grief. e-creeds. That's all we need. Oh well, life goes on. LOL

lol!

 

[Webb]

Hi Free--I don't thing the question should be "whats easier" but whats better. Whats better than taling out our bibles and reading it or showing from it what it teaches?

 

[reba]

This thread has sparked an interest in creeds for me. Having quickly read over them or it.. I thought now might be a good time to really read one.

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen. I
Well i believe the above

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
I see no untruth here

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
I believe He is of virgin birth


For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
Seems this is taken from Scripture

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
I only know of one person on this forum who doesn't believe this line

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
Again i agree


We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
In the technical sense catholic meaning 1 church i would agree. I doubt this was that way is meant to be what we today call the RCC. Which i dont agree with ALL their theology


We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
I agree with this also

I dont agree with the everything the
Baptist
AofG
CoC
Pentecostal holiness
SDA
Lutherans
Presbyterians
ETC
teach.

Any one here accept absolutely every thing their church has ever taught as the Word of God?

 

[Sinthesis]

Wern't the creeds written up at a time when printing a Bible was like a huge job? Thinking of how much effort went into some of the writings of those OLD guys it seems over whelming. To print up a guide line ,in longhand,? something in maybe a 'shorthand 'form was a great idea for the time... Of course some one some place will find fault we always do...

I appreciate the point, but I don't think creeds were originally meant to be printed; rather memorized as sort of an executive summary of a much deeper body of biblical study.

The OP's anti-RCC twang destroys any credibility for his notion that ecumenical creeds should be dropped.2

 

[Former Christian]

Reba

Your presentation is a good one. Thought I’d expand on it a little of a personal nature. Since I don’t believe in the idea of cult, in the sense of their members being non-Christians, I include such as believe in non-Trinitarianism and praying to Saints.


We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

All would agree with this.


We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.

There would be some disagreement here. God from God and true God from true God and one Being with the Father would be believed by every kind of Trinitarian. Including the Modalists. Non-Trinitarians wouldn’t believe this. Some might disagree with eternally begotten of the Father, saying that being begotten was at some point in human history. Begotten not made would be contested by those who believe that Jesus has a created human nature, and by those who believe that Jesus had both a Divine nature and a created human nature in one person. That Jesus is one Lord, Son of God, Light from Light, through him all things were made, these things I think would be believed by all.


For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

This I think would be believed by all, though the interpretation of came down from heaven might be a little different in some cases. As I recall, only liberals deny the Virgin Birth.


For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

I think everyone would agree with this.


He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

I would have thought everyone would agree with this, until you said there’s someone on this forum who disagrees.


We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.

The first two sentences would be believed by everyone. With slight variations of interpretation. That the Spirit is worshipped and glorified with the son would not be believed by non-Trinitarians. And that the Spirit has spoken would be understood differently by those who believe that the Spirit is only a force from God.


We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

This seems to be believed by all. But how it is understood is diverse. In my lone case, apparently, I wouldn’t agree with this statement at all, because I don’t believe there is such a thing as one catholic (in the sense of universal) and Apostolic Church. I only believe in local ekklesia that are intended to express that which is one and universal, such as the Body of Christ and the Kingdom of the Son. And I only believe that the New Testament, being the teaching of the Apostles, and the Old Testament as understood through the teaching of the Apostles, is all that’s Apostolic.


We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I know of none who would disagree with this. With the possible exception of those who might understand the first sentence as referring to Baptismal Regeneration and disagree with that doctrine. But in practicality, all believe in that sentence as stated.


I dont agree with the everything the
Baptist
AofG
CoC
Pentecostal holiness
SDA
Lutherans
Presbyterians

ETC

teach.

Don’t know who AofG is referring to. And I would add the Catholic/Orthodox branch, and the JW’s in that assessment. Actually I would say that there is no Christian community that I entirely agree with.

But believing in doctrinal relativity, I would add that I don’t agree with the practice of closed communion relating to differences in doctrine. Which practice I believe is a perpetuation of the problem of denominationalism in Christianity. I’m tolerant of all beliefs that I don’t agree with, and only wish to present that which I believe without anyone telling me I’m stupid, illogical, or ridiculous for believing what I do. And though I have been remiss in a couple of cases that I thought were out of line with attitude more than their doctrine, I try to have the same respect for others. Because my understanding of doctrinal relativity and doctinal tolerance is based on the maxim, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Which in turn is based on,

Le 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
Mt 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Ga 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Jas 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

Joh 17:
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
(KJV)

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Sinthesis

Even though Enow may be anti-Catholic, as many Protestants are, that's no reason to assume that his prejudice destroys the credibility of the idea of not using creedal statements. That in itself shows a prejudice against those who are prejudiced.

Personally, I'm anti-Catholic organization or system. But not anti-Catholic people. Would you discount everything I say as without credibility on that ground?

FC

 

[reba]

FYI AofG

Assemblies of God which is a pentecostal denomination.

 

[Stormcrow]

The creeds were created as unifying the christian churches, but there can be no agreements with the Roman Catholic Church. Whethor the creeds contain errors or not: the scriptures above rebukes any such " ecumenical agreements".

Tell us precisely what part of the following creed you don't believe.

First Council of Nicea (325): The Nicene Creed.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;
He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in the Holy Ghost.

[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]

This was the very first known creed promulgated, and it was done so to combat heresies that continued to pop up in the church. That was it's purpose: NOT to unify the churches as there was virtually only ONE (Roman Catholic) at the time this creed was written! And if it was written to "unify the churches", why is there not one single word about unification of thought, doctrine, or purpose in it?!?

Further, virtually every creed written since is based on the Nicene Creed!

Now, if you say you believe ANY of these statements in the creed, then your whole anti-Roman Catholic rant is null and void, because even believing ONE of these statements belies your position, stated again:

"...there can be no agreements with the Roman Catholic Church."

Therefore, your whole argument is without merit.