Creeds vs. Bible

[JonC]

Some people reject creeds and confessions because of their content. They do not want to be pinned down as to what they believe. They want the option to move the goal posts if necessary.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

I believe this is a misunderstanding, and one similar to the misunderstanding some would apply to creeds and confessions.

I have never encountered anyone who rejects creeds and confessions because they want to hold flexible doctrine (this does not mean you are wrong but it is why I believe that to be the case). Often the issue is more that people do not want to be pinned down to a creed or confession but they are willing to be pinned down to the Scripture behind those things.

Creeds and confessions work to unite, to bring together, or to explain to the group to which they apply the beliefs of a whole.

Where they fall apart is when they are imposed upon people who do not hold them as some type of authority.

The danger that I have seen is in the misuse of these things. I have seen doctrine defended not on the grounds of Scripture but on the grounds of a particular creed. This is indoctrination, not biblical edification.

I can argue a group should not belong to the SBC by presenting the SBC F&M. I can say "here is what I believe" and offer the same. But I should not insist another affirm the confession or that it is itself an authority for my faith.

 

[Aaron]

Tell me what "fundamental, straightforward scriptural" verse or passage I am denying.

That in the Resurrection, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage. Yet, you affirm marriage. I know you have a wresting you try to use to "Riggle out" of your self-contradiction, but the very caution of your OP undoes it.

 

[Aaron]

Do you think I deny what Paul wrote?

You deny what "any intelligent person" gleans from it.

 

[JonC]

You deny what "any intelligent person" gleans from it.

That's what I've been saying for years!!

 

[asterisktom]

That in the Resurrection, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage. Yet, you affirm marriage. I know you have a wresting you try to use to "Riggle out" of your self-contradiction, but the very caution of your OP undoes it.

Thank you for being concise. I see now where you misunderstand my position. The resurrection Christ referred to was a one-time event. It happened in AD70. The saints Christ was speaking to, some of whom - according to Christs promise - did live to see that event. That is when the dead in Christ arose and when the living in Christ rose up together with Christ to meet Him in the air. So, yes, they certainly no longer married. They became like the angels - eisangeloi.

But after that event there was a return to the usual marrying and giving in marriage, etc. When we die we will be like them. We miss out on that AD70 event, but not on being changed just as they were. But for us it is death that brings the change, not the rapture. Either way, we will forever be with the Lord.

Hopefully this is clearer.

 

[JonC]

The best example (IMHO) of the difference between Creeds and Scripture is found in the Latin credo (from whence the English word “creed” is derived). A Creed expresses rather than prescribes a belief. A creed is like a book cover. It does not express the narrative, tell the story, put forth the content, define the thesis, or make the argument but instead describes what is inside.

There is a difference between subscribing to a creed and presenting a creed as descriptive to the belief to which one subscribes.

 

[MB]

Thank you for being concise. I see now where you misunderstand my position. The resurrection Christ referred to was a one-time event. It happened in AD70. The saints Christ was speaking to, some of whom - according to Christs promise - did live to see that event. That is when the dead in Christ arose and when the living in Christ rose up together with Christ to meet Him in the air. So, yes, they certainly no longer married. They became like the angels - eisangeloi.

But after that event there was a return to the usual marrying and giving in marriage, etc. When we die we will be like them. We miss out on that AD70 event, but not on being changed just as they were. But for us it is death that brings the change, not the rapture. Either way, we will forever be with the Lord.

Hopefully this is clearer.

This is heresy.
MB

 

[asterisktom]

This is heresy.
MB

Oh please. If it is heresy there must be a verse proving it is heresy. Give me one.

 

[Jerome]

Reminder, of crucial representations and pledges made in getting the current Bapt. Faith & Mess. passed in 2000:

Baptist Press June 14, 2000
Baptist Press June 14, 2000

"In answer to debate coming from the floor, members of the study committee repeatedly defended the preamble, as well as the entire document, as a statement of belief and not as a binding or governing document on Southern Baptist churches and their members."

"Committee members cautioned the press against misunderstanding...noting that the convention's vote is not binding on local churches....[Adrian] Rogers noted....'It is not a creed. It is a statement of what most of us believe'."

 

[37818]

. . . need to be corrected (as in the "Jesus went to Hell" mistake). . .

I just read your first post. So at of this point I do not know if this was addressed. Acts of the Apostles 2:27, ". . . Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, . . ." So no it is not a mistake. The mistakes are some of the interpretations of this teaching. Modern translations now transliterate it. And the term "hell" has been moved to refer to the second death.

 

[Reformed]

But, if you did not mean me, I apologize.

Tom, thank you for your apology. I truly did not mean you. I know individuals who reject confessionalism because it pins them down to what they believe. These individuals are not acting in good faith. I know these people both in-person and online. I try to avoid having theological discussions with them. I took your OP to be a caution against allowing confessions and creeds to supplant scripture. I accept that warning, as we all should. I also recognize that some people reject creeds and confessions because of their content, i.e. they disagree with that content. Those are theological disagreements. I have no problem with that. No one should affirm anything they do not consider to be true.

 

[Yeshua1]

Them why preach a sermon right?

Creeds and Confessions are only codified statements of Biblical truth yet many fear them unnecessarily

they are concise summaries of major biblical doctrines, but danger is when one elevates them to be on par with scriptures themselves!

 

[Yeshua1]

Of course, the title of the thread ('creeds vs the Bible') is erroneous and tendentious. Creeds and confessions are not opposed to the Bible.
Here is the very first article of the 1689 Baptist confession: 'The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience.' How can that be opposed to the Bible?

think that he is referring to at times some in reformed churches do seem to be elevating them to scripture levels, as in quoting them instead of the Bible!

 

[Yeshua1]

Some people reject creeds and confessions because of their content. They do not want to be pinned down as to what they believe. They want the option to move the goal posts if necessary.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

They would be the ones being "pious" holding to "scripture only"

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, I do believe He already appeared in AD70. That was the glorious appearing. But the blessed hope is ongoing for all who are in Christ.

if he had appeared as in second coming event, there would have been there physical resurrection of all dead and alive in Christ, and the Millennium starting, zilch happened!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, I do believe He already appeared in AD70. That was the glorious appearing. But the blessed hope is ongoing for all who are in Christ.

You know that view is seen as being heresy, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

The Bible pins me down as to what I can and cannot believe. A person who corrects me from the Bible is always appreciated.

You do not know me, Reformed. Dont pretend to know what my motives are.

Don't the major Confessions use scriptures as their basis though?

 

[Yeshua1]

Tell me what "fundamental, straightforward scriptural" verse or passage I am denying.

The part that when Jesus returns, we shall ALL be raised up in a glorified physical resurrected body!

 

[Yeshua1]

Do you think I deny what Paul wrote?

Totally misunderstood what he wrote!

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe this is a misunderstanding, and one similar to the misunderstanding some would apply to creeds and confessions.

I have never encountered anyone who rejects creeds and confessions because they want to hold flexible doctrine (this does not mean you are wrong but it is why I believe that to be the case). Often the issue is more that people do not want to be pinned down to a creed or confession but they are willing to be pinned down to the Scripture behind those things.

Creeds and confessions work to unite, to bring together, or to explain to the group to which they apply the beliefs of a whole.

Where they fall apart is when they are imposed upon people who do not hold them as some type of authority.

The danger that I have seen is in the misuse of these things. I have seen doctrine defended not on the grounds of Scripture but on the grounds of a particular creed. This is indoctrination, not biblical edification.

I can argue a group should not belong to the SBC by presenting the SBC F&M. I can say "here is what I believe" and offer the same. But I should not insist another affirm the confession or that it is itself an authority for my faith.

The problem would be int he extreme positions on them, as many see them as not being needed at all, as just "bible only", while others equate them to be essentially equivalent to the scriptures themselves!