Creeds? Historicity?

Well this is me. However history is important. No reason to make the same mistakes all over again.

If they encourage you and help you in your walk with God, that's great. But if you blindly follow them because they have the "weight of history" behind them, then you might need to rethink your position. Keep reading.

I find them an interesting historical record. But I do not believe them to be any more authoritative than say the sermon you preached on Sunday. Both have to be held in the light of scripture.

History is important. But it must be confined to its place and not elevated to a pedestal. Before approximately 1700 there was no freedom of thought. You believed what you were told to believe and most people didn't have a copy of scripture to compare with what the religious folk of the day were saying.

Certainly for most of Christian history, beginning with Rome's "conversion" to Christianity, the "Christian church" didn't hold much with the views of the apostles. Which apostle called for Christ to be forced on the people? Which one called for war against non-believers? Which called for "heretics" to be put to death? No, what the RC and even the so-called Reformers taught wasn't what the apostles believed. "Culture of the times" doesn't excuse the atrocities performed by some in these times in the name of God.

And we need to remember that so we don't go down the same path.

I don't know that many do that. It's possible to read both the commentaries of the past and scripture and still suspect/reject the teaching of men in the past because their political alliances/views taint their testimony. It is also possible to find the meat of their teaching while rejecting the bones. They weren't all wrong, neither were they all right. They were just men who who had to survive this world and make the same choices we have to make today.


btw there wasn't a poll option I could choose so I didn't vote.

Good topic, Luke!

 

Are we NT Christians under the Law? Did Christ or any of the apostles affirm this precedent? I don't think so.

Which of the Nicene Creed to I believe the apostles didn't teach? This part corrupts the whole: "And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;"

I don't believe the apostles taught that there should be ONE church, but rather local churches who cooperated with one another. Yes, the early Church looked to Jerusalem for leadership but that was more because that is where most of the apostles were located than because the apostles wanted a single church hierachy such as the RC.

I also don't believe one MUST be baptised for the remission of sins. Sorry. The theif didn't hop off the cross and go get baptised. Christ set the precedence. I DO believe one ought to be baptised as a sign of their belief, but that has little to do with the mechanics of salvation. Salvation is complete upon belief in Jesus Christ.

No, I'm better described as the first half on number 2 "they are somewhat useful" and the last half of number 3 "I have the Holy Spirit for guidance" but with the addition of "all should be compared to scripture" which wasn't an option at all. Polls have their limitations.

 

Creeds can be useful, but no one has been able to show me how "affirming" a particular creed is any guarantee of doctrinal purity. There is plenty of room to wiggle around with any of these creeds.

No creed but the Bible! (even though I know this leaves the door open for lots of discussion and difference)

 

OK. I voted for number two. I see that three people so far see me as a heretic. Oh well.

I used to value the creeds a lot more than I do now, yet I still see them as quite useful.

But here is the problem. The creeds - and the creed proclaimers - will not abide with "quite useful". They settle for nothing less than setting them up as Shibboleths. And to do so is to place them in frictional antithesis against the only thing that should be our rule and canon of faith and practice, the Word of God. We could learn a lesson from those early Christians of Berea who, having before them the Apostle Paul, whose words are eminently more trustworthy than any creeds, still held his words up to the Scriptural light. This is what we should do.

I know that people like Keith Matthison and, to a lesser extent, RC. Sproul have held up creeds higher than is warranted. But I think earlier writers like John Owen, though he was instrumental in formulating the WCF, had the right idea: Counsels and creeds have no Scriptural precedence, and we must always be careful to maintain them as ministerial tools (if that) rather than magisterial impositions.

More on John Owen and his view on creeds and church councils can be found on the other thread I started here today, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God", which is a review of part of Owen's "Christologia".

Parting comment: It is ironic that many of those who speak too highly of creeds, desiring to use them as canons (or maybe "cannons"!) of faith and practice, still love the phrase "Semper Reformanda". The two cannot mutually exist. It is either "semper" or "set in stone".

 

Exhibit A:

 

Well, Owen was instrumental in formulating it - Do you know what that word means, Jerome? "serving as a means or influence; helpful" .

Shall I recommend a biography on Owen, or perhaps the pertinent volume on the WCF in Warfield's set?

Or do you want to continue to demonstrate more peevishness than knowledge?

 

I didn't vote because there really isn't a choice for my perspective.

I find the creeds of Christendom very valuable, very informative (each is backed by a Council who wrestled with some major tenet of Christianity), and they have served to guide the Church for close to 2000 years, most of which saw a general populace who were not capable of reading and who needed some bedrock doctrine to hold the essentials of the faith.

I do not, however, see creeds as binding in the same way that some Protestant denominations see them (I was raised under a system like that and the general membership are sorely lacking in theological knowledge and basic understanding of biblical truth), nor do I hold them as "sacred" in the RC tradition.

IF we are going to discuss creeds, perhaps we should take a few of the common creeds apart line-by-line and see if we agree or disagree with what they actually say. I suspect that people who have an argument with the historical creeds of the faith probably have that argument based on some mistaken notion that creeds are against our faith in some way rather than the fact that the creeds actually say something un-biblical.

 

I voted for number two because the historical confessions/creeds of the early church are helpful.

 

When talking theology, I agree with the phrase, "If it is new it probably is not true. If it is true it probably is not new."

Now, that does not make everything in history true, but I do believe that theology relies heavily on historic theology.

While Creeds are not inspired like the Bible, I think they have a great part in our history in pointing us towards orthodoxy. Of course, some creeds are heretical and some are valid. However, in the Protestant realm there seems to be a clear definition of orthodoxy and heresy, and grace on non-essentials that has been outlined throughout our history.

The American expirament led to many rejecting any type of authority to include creeds and confessions. In my opinion, their radical expurgating of these creeds led to much greater errors and greater problems. No one became a heretic for embracing confessions like the Westminster. Rather, those who became heretical in that tradition did so by rejecting the WCF. While we have to measure the confession by the Word of God, they are great in outlining orthodoxy.

 

Yes, please (try to) cite any secondary source that says that Owen was instrumental in formulating the WCF.

I'll let Owen speak for himself:

[writing about the Westminster Assembly]

"If it shall be asked then, why did they not formerly agree in the assembly? I answer, (1.) I was none of them, and cannot tell."

Works of John Owen

 

I am not going to go through your pointless hoops. JO was not a signatory, but he was advisory, especially in the early stages. I am almost positive I picked that up from Warfield, but also from someone else (Piper perhaps?).

I am in the process of moving. Those books are packed. Plus, I have too many irons in the fire. This is a relatively unimportant issue. Anyway, I certainly don't want to prolong a deeper discussion with a rude person like you. Think what you want.

 

John Owen was not part of the formers of the WCoF. He was on the small team that made up the Savoy which leaned heavily on the WCoF.

 

Yes, I know that. This came later.

 

:laugh: My slip is showing! I was baptised in a Missionary Baptist Church and raised by Independent Baptist parents (who skipped from church to church and sometime denom to denom but stuck with IFB concepts).

And I agree with you. But the creeds were written in a time when the general culture of the time would understand there was only ONE church and that was the RC (or later on the Church of England). There was no true independence from being a part of the bigger group unless you wanted to die (or be persecuted unmercifully). So while you and I might make the distinction other less educated in the scriptures might not.

If that is so, why not just quote the scripture? It's in plain King's English. Because by changing just ever so slightly it allowed for the teaching that the RC was the only true church (or later on the CoE and later still other groups that seek to claim such). And on top of that it gives a list "rules" that must be followed in order to be part of that "catholic" church and those rules can be interpreted any way any group wishes to interpret them. For instance, you and I aren't considered truely baptised by the Catholic Church (and some other groups) because we didn't undergo the process *their* way.

Sola Scriptura is the most useful "creed" out there.

 

Creeds and Hypocracy oh wait you said historicity are they close to the same thing?