Featured Read a Creed in Church?

Well... I offer to meet with open bibles and you pick any topic and let's see what is what...and surprise ,surprise, you decline.....lol...I understand. You would not want to be embarrassed by a truck driver...haha. You were so sure I could not speak scripture at all a few posts ago, but I give you a chance and you decline.....yes I see.

Whatever that means....lol.....violence is not the answer my friend.....so...you are sparing me from your"physical abilities".....oh boy...thanks for having mercy upon me.as if that might happen,,,,lol.
If you spared me from anything it would be your desire to launch into long winded carnal philosophy.....which would be a real waste of my time...so yes...thanks for declining,
You offer no scripture here, I am sure you have none to offer there either.I will be free to speak to those God wants me too.You can retreat into your shell now as you have no credibility whatsoever with this lame posting , and your snide remarks.
I have no need to speak with you if this is what you are about.

 

I think this church gives the typical example of where most creed followers put their authority:

Hope Reformed Baptist Church, Medford, N.Y.​

So pertaining to "anybody" closely following such leadership they are bound to be obligated to abide by forcing interpretations of the scriptures to fit these manmade doctrines ... transparency and honesty would be key concerning how they have predetermined that they will approach the scriptures:

"I would not only not oppose them reading their creed in church but for purposes of full discloser and transparency I would strongly suggest they should post their doctrinal guide on the wall, on a large sign, just as highlighted, above the their pastor's head for a warning to all that attend their church as a clue as to what they are dealing with. - (Maybe between a plaque of the 5 Commandments of TULIP and a picture of John Calvin burning heretics at the stake.)"​

I would think members who do not dare question the obsessive claims of "authority' of such creeds are vulnerable to cult-like beliefs that no others are not specially enlightened. I suspect anyone that openly question the authority of that creed in this church would face a similar although modern day attitude as that of John Calvin from the pastor and "faithful members" concerning them being not saved etc. ​

 

If a creed is accurate and agrees with the word of God, all is well. But what if that creed teaches complete error and folks interpret scripture to agree with that error?

None of us believes that a person must be baptized to be saved, but what if your church's SOF insisted men must be baptized and pulled this verse out of context as a proof text?

Mar 1:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

What if your church taught this verse and put special emphasis on "and is baptized"? What if children were taught this over and over again?

This is the danger of creeds. Icon insists HIS creeds are truth, even when non-Cals can provide much scripture that refutes many views expressed in his creeds.

No, the scriptures are our authority, not creeds. Creeds are OFTEN wrong.

 

12strings

Whatever someone believes is their creed. I do not use a creed .
I use the 1689 confession of faith, and A Baptist Catechism with Commentary,by WR.Downing.....I use Jl Daggs manual of theology, I use J.P. Boyce Abstract of systematic theology, I use Berkoffs Systematic Theology...as study tools...

Each and everyone of these tools places and maintains scripture first,as the only rule of faith and practice.

12 strings.....the statement is not haughty at all. It is upfront and direct,and quite accurate. WE ARE SURROUNDED.... by liberals ,Rc churches, assorted pentecostal churches...we are one of the few confessional churches around here.
We do not seek in anyway to conceal who we are Hope,Reformed, Baptist church. No bait and switch...no tricks.... All churches "say" they believe the bible.The real question is....What does the bible teach ?

A proper confession of faith.....answers that question for any person who wants to know what to expect if they come to hear the word preached.

We see the truths that many others have also seen known as Calvinism. We say....here we stand. We say....the bible teaches these things...

A church with no statement of faith..is open to all manner of error ,,,,like the BB is.
No one defends the truth of the scripture alone as fervently as The pastor of the church here. In fact I have visited many of the Arbca churches and there is a complete unity in all the churches on this.

The 1689 is a good starting place. I do not believe everything in it. I believe most of it is right on the doctrinal portions...I do not agree with the idea that the Pope was the anti-christ.as it is written. I am not 'forced to share that view".

Correct .....not only more specific, but better written,and thought out to give the learner a more concise way of gathering scriptures on one topic,and articulating them in a way that is useful in evangelism.

Exactly.....the men who wrote them seek to boil down .....where do we stand on truth.What does the bible teach on this?

You see here on BB.....someone says....I do not like calvin, so i do not use the term calvinism to support this man....

They get jumped on with people saying...see they want calvins teaching but not calvin...lol.....calvin did not make up the teaching.the scripture contains it. he wrote about much of it,and not infallably

So ARBCA churches come right out front and say what we believe and where we stand.

These tools expose and weed out all manner of false teaching and inconsistency as posted by Winman, Benjamin,Ach, Van and others offer 24/7. That is why they rail against it all the time,they know what they are doing.
They would be allowed to visit,listen, and discuss their ideas and novelties, but they would not be allowed membership as they do not confess the faith we do. They believing other things should seek out other places that allow for any and everything without any doctrinal stand.
The Eldership would see that they were about sowing discord and seek to protect the flock which is under their charge.

This is the heart of this issue.

During fellowship times there is biblical discussion,agreement and disagreement to be had. As long as it does not turn into an effort to undermine the work. That is the advantage of the confession. If someone denies the trinity...we can say...you are denying the scriptural truth of the trinity and you knew before you became a member here that that is what we openly confess.
There are some persons in our church who are members who do not agree on all things in the confession, but they like most of the teaching and are still unsettled and learning.They do not disrupt things however.
there are no doctrinal police who FORCE THEM to believe.

Correct:wavey: anyone is welcome to call the pastor and discuss it with him.

Exactly correct!

yes,,,this is exactly the case:wavey:

 

There you go again, right from the beginning of your argument, on the all/some - thing.
Now:

““Merely” expresses Biblical truth and not man-made doctrines”??? - “merely”??? Wow! That is quite an artistic display of euphemistic expression you got there!

But, let’s break these premises down:

(1) Taking out the euphemism about “one merely believing” we are left with what they actually believe about the confession, “expresses Biblical truth” and that it is “not man-made doctrine”

“then” – according to these premises (1), the conclusion you offer us is based on a comparison (this time by use of a dysphemism – comparing to a disbelieve of Jesus not raising from the dead – a “heretic”!) to contend for and justify telling a perspective member, here comes more euphemism (cannot join), based on this comparison of disbelief of the confession to a heretic.

Conclusion broken down:

(2) Justification of disallowing membership by comparing one that doesn’t believe in the confessions to a heretic.

"Then" (therefore) a little more euphemistic rhetoric (“simply much more specific”) while making the "plea" why we should believe your argument’s premises and conclusion to be true - “This confession is simply much more specific.” ->

IOWs, your reply pertaining to my argument:

Your argument is that (1) the confession expresses Biblical truth and not man-made doctrines. (2) based on this premise it is justifiable to look at those who oppose the confession as heretics and disallowing a person’s membership in a “Christian” church according to the doctrines in the confession.

And this argument of yours contradicts my argument pertaining to the “authority given to the confession and not the Bible” ->(via cult-like enforcement – comparing those who do not interpret scriptures within the guidelines of the confession to unbelievers and heretics and disallowing their membership):

-> How???

Now, my conclusion was that:

… "transparency and honesty would be key concerning how they have predetermined that they will approach the scriptures":

On my premise that people are obligated to abide to forcing interpretations to fit man-made doctrines.

And your conclusion to my argument is that (1) the confession expresses Biblical truth and is not man-made doctrine (2) It is justifiable to compare those opposed interpreting the confessions to be Biblical truths to heretics (3) Therefore, it is justifiable to disallow “anyone” in opposition to this claimed authority on which “truth is based” membership in that CHRISTIAN??? church.

Ah,... my argument goes to show “where” authority is placed and “what” the consequences against those who oppose such rule are thought as – for example, “heretics!” - as well as calls for honesty and transparency - but hard to be transparent when one attempts to avoid the bottom line!

Sorry, but seems to me you unwittingly proved my statements true by agreeing with them.

*(see below) That said, let’s examine these statements from a member of that church who claims it is honest to say that the scripture is their only authority:

First we see an attempts to justify their not concealing where they "truly" base authority against the heretics by demonstrating how they perceive their doctrinal statement to be true:

Does “claim” to be transparent and honest, while trying to justify where they place authority – “because everybody says they believe the Bible”.

But goes on with more double-talk which actually demonstrates where the authority for their belief comes from:

Obviously the leader of this church begs the question about the truth of scriptures based on the confession – this point is not only fallacy but demonstrates just how “fervently” or “pushy” this pastor probable gets toward declaring the confessions to be Biblical truth.

Demonstrates placing authority in the work of these men’s scriptural interpretation as where they stand on truth…this person (a member of that church) now demonstrates that he can hardly contain himself not to start “proof-texting” as he often does that those who do not believe in these interpretations do not believe in the authority of the “church fathers” and will go on to make veiled suggestions that that those who don’t agree with them are lost. (a cult-like teaching of the these confessions as authority)

What tools? Scripture? No, the interpretations from these men (confession authors) these tools are the “authority”, not one’s own reasoning about from the scripture itself.

*People are allowed to disagree as long as it doesn't “undermine the work” of the “non-authoritative” confessions. ROFL!!!:laugh:

Based on a "REAL-WORLD SITUATION" rather than your opening and finishing premises of all/some, do you not see a problem here, right on this board, in a real world situation concerning the "truth" about "some" -"logically" placing authority in creeds and how others attempt to justify this action of using creeds based on "merely" euphemistic reasoning?

 

as study tools...:smilewinkgrin:

 

Benjamin

As if "your own Carnal reasoning" would be superior to the bible teaching pastors who wrote the catechisms and confessions...somehow what they offer is not as good as what you Benjamin offer:love2:
yes this is becoming clear now.....studying greek hebrew,,,seminary training, extensive study...cannot compare....to Benjamin.That is really what these foolish long-winded posts are about.

No catechism, No confession, No Godly teachers anywhere....just Benjamin writing about ...if t= truth,,,,,and f = something else, and if we do not beg the question, or whatever other thing you ramble about.....that is really what is important. No pastor or group can have anything correct...yes I see what you are saying alright....:laugh::laugh:

 

You nailed it...and that's the true mark of an Arminian...ie, theology distorted in the direction of the self. It is a gospel that perserves a determinative role for personal choice. Just call it what it is & be done with it.

 

Interesting though those of the past who were arminians saw the grace of God in saving them almost same fashion as calvinists, saw themselves as sinners without hope apart from grace of God!

 

12strings

your posts make sense because you have no agenda.he is twisting what you say...because it does make absolute sense as does this post...which will soon be attacked:wavey:

Exactly...there is no problem...so he must insert some kind of philosophical objection, or quibble about your words, notice he is not offering any scriptural instruction or discussion.....he is just speaking evil about what he does not understand,and about a pastor who would expose his evil designs in less than 5 minutes discussion.:thumbs:

2. This is not what I said, or meant...I was merely using the most extreme example I could to show that each individual church has the right to determine who they allow for members...my analogy has nothing to do with comparing non-calvinists to heretics...it had everything to do with showing that each church can use various criteria to determine membership, WITHOUT DENYING THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURES.

Yes......so a confessional church, or even a church with a strong doctrinal statement of faith....would address the padeo baptism issue,and say we do not see that teaching in SCRIPTURE...as our confession clearly states:thumbs:

There is no problem unless someone has an evil agenda.

Ah....12 strings...you are not suppose to notice when He does that!!!

Yes...there it is!!!!

Another helpful post!

 

That’s all you got is to resort to claiming what I clearly pointed out you logically said is not what you meant, to throw in a desperate attempt at a personal attack by suggesting I was questioning one’s salvation accompanied with an arrogant wink and then to end with this ridiculous strawman?! By "simply"...

And now I’m supposed to start over and chase down what you are “merely” repeating now, after you have clearly demonstrated that you have missed my point in regards to relying on your- all/some strawman fallacious reasoning throughout your argument, …again? No thanks.

 

Really, who can cast blame on the Calvinists for following creeds and confessions to better express “their” beliefs of what the scriptures must reveal as truth?

The mark of a Calvinist is to claim that the scriptures are their authority and in the same breath turn right around and desperately attempt to justify their faithful following of manmade creeds and/or confessions by claiming that since the authors of such, who used “their” philosophical “reasoning” to support it by scriptures, somehow places that scriptural authority into the creeds. I get it:

What they ignorantly fail to realize is that they have just displayed that they have unwittingly transferred the authority of the scriptures from their own reasoning to the other men’s reasoning concerning the meaning of these scriptures. (Col 2:8) Therefore the mark of the Calvinist is to demonstrate their own poor reasoning skills over and over again seen in that they can’t hold on to a thought long enough for their reasoning to be of value to them anyway. No problem guys, I understand.

Don’t worry, I get it. We

 

2nd London Baptist of 1689 or Westminster Confession would be my suggestion

 

Any christian, or group of christians, who have been taught well will have absolutely NO NEED of a creed.