Apostles Creed ?

The Roman Road--leads to easy believism; repeat after me; say this prayer, now you are saved. Churches are filled with the fruits of hyper-evangelism: carnal Christians. What that amounts to is blind leading blind--all in the ditch.

"Noone comes to The Father unless The Spirit draws him."

Selah,

Bro. James

 

The so-called "Roman Road" uses pulling verses out of their context, stringing them together, and coming up with an answer. Other verses could be used in this manner to gain a totally different spin.

 

Bro. James

You said,
"However, the scripture says we are known by our fruits, not by what we say we believe."

Scripture also says what we believe is essential. Creeds are "useful" in that the church summarizes what is taught in scripture. I would never suggest creeds should be used instead of scripture, but creeds can keep every new generation from fighting the same old heresies/having the same old debates, that have already been carefully studied and refuted.

They should be carefully reviewed, and are certainly not infallible, but again, they are useful.

 

James,

I'm not talking about Roman Catholic Church, but simply debating the merits of the Apostle's Creed. I affirm the Apostle's Creed as a true statement of faith and I'm not Roman Catholic and never have been.

I'm glad that God has delivered you away from the errors and heresies of the Roman Church. May God be praised! The errors of the Roman Church is another topic that I will not debate here.

--Jeff

 

Hello Jeffrey.

Hello GulliverBarb I'll use the creed from your post if you don't mind.

I shall explain why I don't like this particular creed apart from the indoctrination thing.

There is a doctrine that says that Jesus, after He died, actually visited those suffering the torments of Hell, those who died in sin before Christ came and gave them a second chance.
I don't accept that scripture is saying this.

•5. He descended to the dead. [Mt.12:38-40; Ac.2:22-28; 1 Pet.3:18-19]

I believe He died and was buried and He sat beside His Father for three days before raising Himself in the flesh that was Him.
I don't know if you believe as I do or as that other doctrine does.

•10. the Universal Church [Eph.1:22-23; Gal.3:26-28; Eph.2:18-22; 1 Cor.12:13-14,27],
•11. the communion of saints [Ac.2:42-47; 1 Cor.10:16-17; 1 Jn.1:5-7; Gal.6:2,10],

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints...
But without the comma it reads, the holy catholic church the communion of saints... Emphasising the holy catholic church is the communion of saints. But it is 10 and 11 not just ten so how is the Universal Church different from the communion of the saints? What is meant by the communion of the saints? If they are the same why have they two different proofs and numbers?

I also make note that 'catholic' has become 'Universal'. Which is it? A capital or a lower case?

I get back to the songs I have to go to bed. See yer tomorrow God willing. .

john.

 

Hello John,
In answer to your question.... "But it is 10 and 11 not just ten so how is the Universal Church different from the communion of the saints? What is meant by the communion of the saints? If they are the same why have they two different proofs and numbers?"

My interpretation of Universal Church is all evanglical churches. I went to catholic school and have aunts that are catholic nuns and it was always made very clear that catholic in the apostles creed ment "universal". Nothing else. I am a born again christian and can see many of the misconceptions people make that do not know the Catholic faith. The pedulium swings both ways and misconceptions are also made of the Baptist faith.

Communion of saints in my opinion is just that... communion (the eating of bread and wine that is done in rememberence to what Jesus did for us. People of "faith" being the saints.)

 

Philip Schaff has an excellent three-volume set entitled, "Creeds of Christendom." In the first volume, Schaff talks about the role of creeds in comparison to the Scripture. Both Scripture and creeds serve as standards for our faith but in different ways. The Bible declares, "thus saith the Lord." The creeds respond, "I believe." In other words, the creeds are our response to God's revelation.
Another comparison is that the Bible is a standardizing standard while the creed is a standardized standard. The Bible is like the official yardstack made by the bureau of weights and measures. The creeds are yardsticks sold in your local hardware store. They are made to reflect the official yardstick.
By the way, Schaff was a committed Evangelical who makes strong criticisms of Rome.

 

May I point out that some who were converted from the Roman church have an axe to grind. Not that I blame them. I'm sure I'd feel the same way. Their passion for the Gospel and their hatred of its perversion is a great thing. But sometimes they become reactionary. Instead of evaluating things on their merits, they evaluate them based on whether or not they feel they are associated with Rome. Might this explain the opposition to solid, Christ-honoring creeds from otherwise Bible-believing Christians?

 

"In vain ye do worship, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

Shall we analyze the existence and use of creeds using the above scripture as a paradigm?

Why is there no reference to: Salvation by grace through faith, not of one's self, but a gift from God? Eph. 2:8-10.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

According to the dictionary a creed is a set of fundamental beliefs.

By that definition the Baptist distinctives comprise a creed.

Or how about the following, is it a "creed"?:

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints

Although one may claim and offer Scriptures as proof of these beliefs, none of these five word phrases can be found in the Scriptures except "perseverance of the saints" which can be found together in one verse (Ephesians 6:18).

For instance the two words "limited atonement" do not exist together in the Scriptures yet many believe the concept of these two words with absolute conviction.

Such is the essence of creeds.

HankD

 

Well said HankD! Creeds are simply stating what we believe. No one believes they are above Scripture.

 

TULIP is an acronym to help teach/preach the doctrines of Grace.

The Apostles Creed was birthed in the "holy see".
We were "brainwashed" in Catholic School to memorize the Creed and to pray it often to "gain points" to be used in dealing with purgatory.

I have since found out that only Jesus can pay the price--and there "ain't no" purgatory--there is glory and the pit.

There is not even an inference to the "Grace of God" in this "creed"--which is consistent with salvation by works--which is what the "holy see" is about--also most of the "separated brethren"(reformed and re-reformed as it were) believe in salvation by works. They are happy with the creed too.

I prefer to leave the creeds and the catechisms in the cathedrals--so they can melt with fervent heat--God does not dwell in temples made with hands.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Some Baptist creeds

 

OK, but is is still a list of statements or a "confession" comprised of phrases not found in the Scripture, of which statements many Christians would say promote error.


HankD

 

I think we concede too much to Rome when we consign everything before the Reformation to the Roman Church. Before the Council of Trent, there was no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church as far as I'm concerned. Unwittingly, many anti-Romanist argue Rome's points for them.
For example, the Roman pontiff and cardinals refer to themselves as the Church. Even the media sometimes refer to the Roman intelligensia as The Church. The Church of Christ is not one man, or even a small council of men. The true catholic church is the Body of Christ, not a political organization.