The definition of Christianity...

The trouble with the Apostle's Creed is not in what it says; but in what it does not say. And that in part is what James is referring to.
DHK

 

Well, it is far too bad that the first-century believers who used it as a baptismal confession didn't have you and James around to correct their gaps in theology, isn't it?

So, I guess you're weighing in as saying that someone who agrees to the tenets stated in the Apostle's Creed still isn't Christian enough? What, then, would acceptably qualify someone to be Christian in your eyes? </font>[/QUOTE]Are you that naive to guess what the population of the world would have been at the time of the Apostle Paul? Or do you have a guess what it even was pre-World War I? How about a million or less. And now? Over six billion! Do you know in that time how many cults and other religions have developed? I'll let you do the research on that one. But it was more than just a half dozen or so that existed at the time of Christ. So your assessment of the situation is really quite naive.

We have in our society every cult under the sun calling themselves Christian. We have one poster here who is SDA. We used to have another who I remeber very well--before your time. She, unlike our resident SDA, denied the deity of Christ, denied the trinity, believed that Christ was a created being, what not admit that Christ was the one and only true God (but rather denied it), and believed in a host of other heresied. Her beliefs (as an SDA), were in total contrast to our resident SDA. And yet they both call themselves Christian. "But who are we to judge" says the liberal and new evangelical. "Judge righteous judgement" Jesus said. Judge according to His Word. "By their fruits you shall know them--not the fruits of good works--but the fruits of the doctrines of the Word of God. If one of them were saved, which one would it be. The choice would not be hard to make IMO.

Matthew 7:22-23 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

This is what Jesus prophesied of the end times.
Who are these "Christians?" They will call Jesus Lord. They will claim to be Christian. They will do Christian works--wonderful works in the name of Christ.
But Christ will say unto them: Depart from me ye that work iniquity

They were not his sheep. He never knew them as such. They will be cast into the lake of fire, there to remain forever. "Christians" yes; but in name only.
The Bible says: "The Lord knows them that are his. It does not say: "Tragic know those that are the Lord's." That is quite an arrogant assumption to make or imply. Just because one says he is a Christian or subscribes to any creed does not make him a Christian, no matter how old the creed is.
DHK

 

Case in point: (you may want to study this out carefully)
A Oneness Pentecostal (though outwardly disagreeing with me) cannot affirm what is in the Apostles Creed. They do not believe, and in fact, according to their own statement of faith cannot believe it.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

What does this paragraph mean to you, and what does it mean to the Oneness. Two different things I believe.
Did the Son and the Father co-exist at the same time as the paragraph implies. "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ His only Son (at the same time in existence). Or did the Son take the place of the Father. Did the Son become a manifestation of the Father. Is it possible for the Father and the Son to be present at the same time and place. Oneness says no. They cannot affirm then, that first paragraph, or what the original writers of it had in mind when they wrote. It is deceitful for them to say that they do.

Another case in point:
The Apostles Creed is inherently Catholic. It is recited in the Catholic church so much so that it goes against what Christ commanded in Mat.6:7,

Matthew 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

I was there. That is what it became--a vain repetition. The word "catholic" (though said to mean "universal") meant "Catholic" as pertaining to the RCC, when taught and recited in the RCC.
This Creed did nothing but innoculate me against true Biblical Christianity. It did not bring me closer to Christ; it drove me farther away. It is the principle that Satan uses all the time. Take a cup full of wholesome wheat and put a teaspoon of aresnic in it, and what do you have? The poison of the Catholic Church spoils that which is good. Youu cannot be a Christian and maintain the evil doctrines that the Catholic Church teaches.

I stick to my guns here, and rather adamantly so. It is not what the Apostle Creed says; it is what it does not say that is the problem.
In a much more simpler way of thinking; Many say they are Christian. It is not what they say: "Christian" but what they don't say that is the problem--what kind of Christian--J.W. perhaps??
DHK

 

TP, you may as well give up because if one doesn't believe the same as DHK, he condemns them as being lost anyway. I thank God that I don't have a pastor such as this man.

If I was a sinner, visited his church, listened to a sermon by him, I'd run for the nearest exit, because there is no love for humanity, IMO!

MEE

 

DHK: Matthew 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."

I can't speak for the RCC but when we in the Lutheran Church aren't praying it. We are simply confessing before God and one another the very things that He has given to us to confess.

Yes the Apostle's creed isn't an indepth statement but it was never meant to be indepth. It was only meant as a simple confession of faith. It wasn't until the various anti-Trinitarian and Christological heresies came along that there was a need for greater depth in a confession of faith.

As for catholic really meaning "Catholic," only the RCC makes that claim. We teach that it refers to the church universal.

BTW, haven't you ever heard you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. I am not even RCC and I found your post offensive.

 

This is completely inaccurate. Oneness followers actively DENY the trinity and teach against it. They don't arrive there at all. I wonder if you have truly investigated their beliefs. I have posted several articles before on other threads when this has come up.

They believe Jesus is the Son AND the Father at the same time. This is not biblical, historical Christianity.

 

You know not whereof ye speak. Go do your homework. Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.

 

This is one of the most painful things I have ever read.

This, I fear, is why people turn in droves away from our faith; we're far too busy straining at gnats to bother with loving one another.

Go ahead and post something to get the last word, DHK. I give up. </font>[/QUOTE]I gave you my testimony. I backed it up with my own study of the Word. Are you going to make ad hominen attacks, call me a liar, or give substance to what you say.
Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures neither the power of God.
DHK

 

I realize that Chem. The Lutheran Church is different than the Catholic Church, and has a completely different set of doctrines and beliefs. Hopefully those who would be repeating it would be confessing it sincerely and not as a rote memorized creed saying it without meaning. I am not saying that they are, but with anything that is memorized there is always the danger of that. This being a creed or a confession to you, I concede your point. To many it is not. It is a prayer.

True enough. That is what some have tried to point out to Tragic. Christianity was more simple among the earlier believers. Now there has been an explosion of cults where everyone claims to be a Christian. In Acts where the word "Christian" was used, it was used as a despised name. Now it isn't. Thus all that was needed was a simple statement of faith. With a greater population and a greater number of cults, there is need for a greater and more in depth creed or statement of faith--even to the extent that they differ among Baptists.

I agree. I was writing partly from my own experience. I would have never defined that word as anything other that RCC when I was a Catholic. I never knew it had a meaning of "universal." More than 50% of our nation (Canada) is Catholic. So to say that "only" the Catholics refer to it as RCC, is still "only" the greater or majority of the population (in the nation where I live), and in the world's most populous "Christian" religion.

I made one statement and I defended it, as I still do:
It is not what the Apostle's Creed says that I have a problem with; it is what it does not say that I have a problem with.
DHK

 

DHK, your complaint against those who call themselves Christians but who are not demonstrates the inadequacy of sola Scriptura - all these cultic groups you attack adhere to SS but are heretics. Ironically, your post demonstrates the need for some kind of overarching teaching authority...A Magisterium perhaps...!

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Well, it is far too bad that the first-century believers who used it as a baptismal confession didn't have you and James around to correct their gaps in theology, isn't it?</font>[/QUOTE]Amen DHK!

TP, Arius was born around 250, and died 336, while there could have been elements of his heresy around earlier, the problem was just not as wide-spread for first-century believers...Oh to be back there...

I'm not DHK, but anyway, the Apostles' Creed is a great START. Add the Nicene, Athanasian, & Chalcedonian, THEN you would be getting somewhere, and those who are going nowhere would get somewhere, and Arius' adopted sons today would get elsewhere I quoted a couple of verses from NWT on second page of this thread how Jehovah's Witnesses could agree with parts of the Apostles' Creed, add N, A, & C and the interpretation loophole is shut. Or should we just dump N, A, & C and join a Kingdom Hall? Might get to be one of the 144000...

 

This is completely inaccurate. Oneness followers actively DENY the trinity and teach against it. They don't arrive there at all. I wonder if you have truly investigated their beliefs. I have posted several articles before on other threads when this has come up.

They believe Jesus is the Son AND the Father at the same time. This is not biblical, historical Christianity. </font>[/QUOTE]Marcia, the word *Trinity* is not in the Bible. I'm sure most know that, but trinity means three to you all as well as it does to Oneness Pentecostals.

The difference is that you believe in three individuals/persons and we believe in three manifestations of One God.

As far as Jesus being the "Son and the Father" at the same time, well, yes He was and is.

Rev. 4:8) And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

OR

Col. 2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.


When we say the *Son* we know that the word son is referring to the "Flesh" or "The Son of God."

God is the Spirit that lived in the Son/Flesh that died for the sins of humanity; therefore the Father is omnipresent and dwelled in the Son/Flesh!..thus, making up ONE GOD!...which IS biblical and historical Christianity!


Just a simple post to make clear what Oneness Pentecostals believe, concerning the Godhead.

MEE

 

Historical from when, exactly?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

When on says 'historical Christian belief', one does not necessarily take into account if it was heretical at the time.

 

What is required for one to become a Christian. It is not signing off on a doctrinal statement, It is Knowing Jesus Christ. The apostles creed contains what is necissary to receive Christ through confession. What the Catholic Church believes the word catholic means doesn't change it's definition. If you do not believe in the one true "catholic" church, then what do you believe in? Many Bodies of Christ? That would go against Scripture.