Featured Read a Creed in Church?

Because you are trying to turn this into a personal slugfest instead on addressing the issues that are seen in the arguments. People do follow creeds to get their interpretations of the scriptures and thereby should recognize what they are doing. Icon makes a great example of how people deny this, his tough luck, but the argument is still about the issues not whether Icon is being picked on or not. Not whether "your" church uses creeds.

I suggested you address the arguments that demonstrates the bottom line of where the "final authority" often rests. You now seem to want to ask why I am picking on you rather than address these issues. Again, you seemed to have missed the point. Sorry, but "your" claimed personal experience doesn't carry a lot of weight against the evidence being presented. IOW's - This is an argument against the evidences not again "your" claim of personal experience so you can get offended about it or continue turning it into a personal slugfest. PERSONALLY, I'm tired of hearing it.

 

There are several solutions to your dilemma.

1. Put all posters that you disagree with theologically on ignore.
2. Do not respond to their posts.
3. Do not read their posts.

The point is, my church does not read creeds or confessions. Icon did not say his church does either. All he said is there are elements of truth in some creeds and confessions. If you read the Apostle's Creed, I doubt you will find it at variance with Scripture. If you can, then the Bible is the authority. Scholars a lot smarter than anyone on this board wrote some of these creeds.

What I cannot understand is with all we have agreed on, why are you going after me? If for some mysterious reason you are tired of my posts, I refer you to the start of this one.

 

In the interest of saving time I still have this prepared statement for you:

Further, to be direct regarding your attempt at another veiled invitation to “meet” me, I still have this prepared statement:

 

Again, its not about you or your church. Why try to make it so?

Again, so says you, his words demonstrate otherwise. You have NOT engaged those arguments, this is a debate board. BTW, I have used Icon's churches' doctrinal statement in this thread and exposed it as already mentioned.

No, actually he said a lot more than that as has been pointed out from the reasoning given in his own words. THAT is what I up for debate!

Appealing to the authority of the creeds are we???

Again, you are trying to turn this into a personal slugfest, I have asked you at least twice to address the issues in the arguments. Why are you making this personal?

Really not tired of "you" personally, just tired of the type of so called "debate" which centers on trying to make things personal slugfest instead of sticking to and addressing the issues.

 

SN,

PLEASE NOTE my debate: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2005129&postcount=22 it includes and focuses on the Op topic, it addresses the issues in the argument and demonstrates a typical example of statements made from a church (Icon's) that is very closely tied to creedal confessions tof which hat statement doesn't agree with itself... and I give the reasons why they don't and also why as per the Op I think it would be MORE ethical to bring attention to creeds in a church if the church is so wrapped up in them.

What have you addressed here? Me, poor Icon, you, Dr, Ach...

 

You can deny all you want, I read your own words from you own mouth. You said a confession or creed can be of value if used to get a BETTER UNDERSTANDING of the word of God.

In other words, you interpret scripture through the filter of your confessions and creeds. The scriptures must be understood to agree with your confessions and creeds, therefore they become your authority and not the scriptures alone.

Where you go wrong is highlighted above. You assume your confessions and creeds are truth. The word of God is truth, and your confessions and creeds should agree with scriptures, not the other way around as you do.

 

I think the last statement you made is what clarifies the entire response because Winman is in fact, basing his response on that same experience having interacted with him and facing these issues in post after post. So he is actually not basing this on just "this one statement" but a consistent pattern of statements.

It is one thing to give ear to a man's words as an aid to clarify the Bible, another to turn those mans words into a doctrinal statement and demand that others must understand them to properly understand the gospel. Non Calvinists are repeatedly accused of not understanding Calvinism, and Calvinists maintain that Calvinism IS the gospel, but to understand Calvinism, they rely on the Creeds which therefore means that no person can properly understand the gospel unless they understand Calvinism, and no one can understand Calvinism without the Creeds.

 

I understand your point exactly, and mostly agree with you.

The difference is Icon starts with the assumption that Reformed creeds are truth and infallible. Look at his last statement;

What is Icon speaking of when he says "these tools"? He is speaking of the creeds and confessions which he described as tools that can be used to better understand the scriptures.

In other words, if Icon is confronted with a passage of scripture that a non-Cal interprets to refute a doctrine of Calvinism, where does Icon resort to? Why, he goes to his Reformed creeds and confessions and interprets this passage filtered through these "tools".

Anyone who disagrees with these creeds and confessions of his is said to disagree with "the truth" according to Icon, though they may perfectly agree with scripture.

It is clear that his creeds and confessions are his authority, not the scripture alone.

 

Correct...he believes his c & c to be ripped from scripture.

 

Look Benjamin,
I have long respected your detailed knowledge of Scripture and history even when we disagree. I have never thought of you as disingenuous. We agree on much outside of the subject of Calvinism, which, as you know, I do not even like the term.

Maybe my conclusions are influenced by my time in the Presbyterian Church. I cannot find anything in the Apostles Creed I disagree with.

The last thing I want is another person that has changed from a friend to a bitter rival. I do not want that in your case, as there are enough of them around, one in particular. The only ones I get angry at for any length of time are those that I perceive as dishonest. You are honest and above board in your posts, agree or disagree, and hope you will consider this.

 

Thanks. But, I see that you are not going to let up on taking offense and making this personal despite my counsel; but I hope you will continue to consider the purpose of my trying to redirect your focus on the issues rather than the person.

 

He might believe his creeds and confessions are ripped from scripture, but he interprets scripture through the filter of his creeds and confessions, which is the exact opposite of what we should do. We should make sure our creeds and confessions agree with a true interpretation of scripture.

He clearly said his C & Cs were a tool to be used to "better understand the scriptures". This is ERROR.

 

Thinking about what you said, you are probably right, although I do think the issue of creeds, as long as they are in alignment with Scripture, do no harm.

The core of my problem is not letting something go. At some point after this poster joined, he was mocking another poster about living in Kentucky.(same state I live in). One thing lead to another, then it was the occupation, then military service. I made an inappropriate comment about the Jewish faith in a PM, and got an infraction. There was no excuse for it, but it was a month ago. He has told everyone about it, and the conversation is still going on.

I have been grilled by several posters over the last few weeks, which I suppose I deserve. That is the background to this story. Not one of my better moments. As you suggest, I am going to stop responding to the posts, which I should have done in the first place.

To get back to the issue, I really do not see how creeds and confessions are related to the free will-sovereignty debate.

 

Are your creeds and Scripture readings attached to your hymnal?

 

Keep you creeds, I will stick with the Word of God taken in context.

 

Let's say saturneptune and I are having one of our regular conversations. He asks me, what do you believe the Bible teaches about how one comes into a right relationship with God?

I reply, one must recognize that he is a sinner, under condemnation. He must be sorry for his sins, and trust Christ and Him alone for salvation. I believe that He is able to keep me saved, and that no one can snatch me out of His hand.

Then SN asks me, do you believe that Jesus is God in the flesh? I answer, Yes.

I have just expressed my creed. What's wrong with that? Isn't a creed simply an expression of what one believes the Bible teaches?

 

Winman,

Your "creed" is yourself.You accept nothing but what meaning you ascribe to the verses. Your own ideas are your only creed,even laced with error.
The Catechisms and confessions are used to safeguard against errors such as you offer.They also provide summary statements of the truths of scripture.
You wrongly claim several things about the proper uses of these tools, when everyone I post make clear that the scripture alone is the only rule of faith and practice.
The fact is you, nor Robert Snow, nor Benjamin articulate scripture truth as well as any of these documents.Snow makes the claim he uses scripture alone in context and yet I cannot recall him posting any??? Much less discussing any biblical teaching.