creeds

[Iconoclast]

A couple of thoughts:



Just because you call a statement like that a creed, doesn't make it so. Or are you saying that to say "I believe the Bible" is equal to the creeds you mentioned?





DHK is correct, I don't study the creeds, but I do study history. Just because I don't care for the mindless reverence some of you display for the various creeds doesn't mean that I am unaware of the history that spawned them.

Of course, error and heresy gets repeated down through history. But I don't use the creeds to determine what is heretical. I use the Scripture. Now if that is a creed - and it's not - then I am fine with being creedal.



There are other ways of determining that these group are cults and heresies: the best method is through the Scripture.

You are acting as if accepting a particular creed is the antidote for all heresy. I would say that sound biblical teaching is the antidote to these false beliefs.

Friend......sound biblical teaching is what a good confession or creed is;
see if you can say this much biblicaltruth in less words,or with better verses
http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html

 

[Jim1999]

I agree that creeds are similar to the 5 points of calvinism, known as tulip; a concise way of delineating the thoughts.

If a creed is used for such a purpose, there is nothing wrong with the creed. If, however, it is to be repeated each Sunday in church, I think it is overdone and becomes a form of worship, similar to repeating the so-called Lord's Prayer.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Tom Butler]

I agree that creeds are similar to the 5 points of calvinism, known as tulip; a concise way of delineating the thoughts.

If a creed is used for such a purpose, there is nothing wrong with the creed. If, however, it is to be repeated each Sunday in church, I think it is overdone and becomes a form of worship, similar to repeating the so-called Lord's Prayer.

Cheers,

Jim

I tend to agree, although I don't think reciting a creed or the Lord's Prayer is a sin.

In Matthew 6:9 Jesus told his disciples "After this manner pray ye."

Basically, Jesus told the disciples, "pray like this." He did not say "pray these words."

 

[DHK]

Friend......sound biblical teaching is what a good confession or creed is;
see if you can say this much biblicaltruth in less words,or with better verses
http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html

Perhaps I can do that. It is good reference material just as any commentary is. The trouble with that creed (at least for me), is that I am not a Calvinist. Therefore I find many things that I can disagree with. However, I don't disagree with our church's statement of faith. That is much more important to me than any creed, as is the Bible itself which is my final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine.

 

[Iconoclast]

Perhaps I can do that. It is good reference material just as any commentary is. The trouble with that creed (at least for me), is that I am not a Calvinist. Therefore I find many things that I can disagree with. However, I don't disagree with our church's statement of faith. That is much more important to me than any creed, as is the Bible itself which is my final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine.

DHK,
you said;I don't disagree with our church's statement of faith.

That statement serves as a protection as members can see where the church stands. I was once in a church whose statement of faith had only 8 points.
the 1689 is fairly solid [ i do not agree with some things in it] but it is a well worded document of how many have seen what the scripture reveals.
If someone can improve on it great,but i enjoy how they held the scripture as primary.

Which parts of the 5 pts do you think are off? t and L ?

 

[DHK]

DHK,
you said;I don't disagree with our church's statement of faith.

That statement serves as a protection as members can see where the church stands. I was once in a church whose statement of faith had only 8 points.
the 1689 is fairly solid [ i do not agree with some things in it] but it is a well worded document of how many have seen what the scripture reveals.
If someone can improve on it great,but i enjoy how they held the scripture as primary.

Which parts of the 5 pts do you think are off? t and L ?

This is not the place to get into a debate about the points of Calvinism, nor do I intend to. But I did notice that the document seemingly puts forth only one resurrection for both the just and the unjust:

The end of God's appointing this day, is for the manifestation of the glory of his mercy, in the eternal salvation of the elect; and of his justice, in the eternal damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient; for then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fulness of joy and glory with everlasting rewards, in the presence of the Lord; but the wicked, who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast aside into everlasting torments, and punished with everlasting destruction, from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.

That I can't agree with. Of course the eschatological views of the 17th century were in that time vastly different from those that are mostly accepted today.

I have a library of over 2,000 books. That includes many of the Creeds and Confessions. I can refer to them at any time as well as on the internet. They are simply reference material to me, as any commentary is. I am not against them. I just don't elevate them above the status of any other of my reference materials.

 

[Tom Bryant]

Friend......sound biblical teaching is what a good confession or creed is;
see if you can say this much biblicaltruth in less words,or with better verses
http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html

I have no real problem with a concise statement about what a particular church or denomination believes. But I would much rather have pointed people to the Scripture so they can state what they believe with Bible verses rather than asking them to turn to 1st Baptist Faith and Message 4.

I am just simply cutting out the middle man (the creed). The men who wrote those creeds went to the Bible and set out what they believed the Bible to teach. They then gave them to people to have as a guide. I am simply doing this with my church. Why should I give the people 2nd hand food?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

In other words, is there anyone here who really believes they are not part of a creedal denomination?

The problem with creedal statements is that they often become of primary importance. Baptist want the emphasis on the word of God. Its too easy to take a traditional stance erroniously and make it supercede the scriptures themselves. This is why churches stay away from creeds. If creeds are put in a proper position of being subordinate to clear teaching of the bible and remain that way then most don't have an issue with it. However, creeds by their nature color ones view of scripture.

 

[Aaron]

If all one needed was the Bible, there would be no need for ministers. As far as a treatise on Christian theology, the Bible is a cluttered, disorganized and unsystematic hodgepodge of revelation. If someone were to ask you, "What must I believe to be a Christian," and you simply handed him a Bible, you would be doing him a disservice. One would do better to offer a plow to a hungry child.

But creeds are a service. They're a ministry. They answer the question, "What do Christians believe," in a concise and systematic fashion. The ministers have plowed the Scriptures and sown to them, and the creeds are the fruit thereof ground fine, moistened and seasoned and placed in single-serving sized baby-food jars.

--------------------------



Now before some of you all go off half-cocked about my statement about the Scriptures not being all one needs, think about what I just wrote. I'm not saying that the Bible is insufficient, or that it is incomplete. I simply said it's fragmented and disorganized. But it's that way by design for two reasons:

1. It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter, Prov. 25:2
2. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, Gen. 3:19

It wasn't designed to yield its treasures to the slothful, or to the profane, and babes are certainly not equal to the task. The church would have no ministers if they weren't needed.

 

[jaigner]

If creeds are put in a proper position of being subordinate to clear teaching of the bible and remain that way then most don't have an issue with it. However, creeds by their nature color ones view of scripture.

You are probably correct.

But I don't think it's necessary to avoid a positive because it might have some negative consequences. Most evangelical churches I've been to that have used creeds, including my current one, don't have this issue. They use the historical creeds that are informed by the Bible.

My favorite is the Apostles' Creed. Des anyone have an issue with this one?

 

[Iconoclast]

I have no real problem with a concise statement about what a particular church or denomination believes. But I would much rather have pointed people to the Scripture so they can state what they believe with Bible verses rather than asking them to turn to 1st Baptist Faith and Message 4.

I am just simply cutting out the middle man (the creed). The men who wrote those creeds went to the Bible and set out what they believed the Bible to teach. They then gave them to people to have as a guide. I am simply doing this with my church. Why should I give the people 2nd hand food?

Tom,DHK,thinking stuff,

I like that we all agree that being biblically knowledgeable is of primary importance. Any books, and teachings are secondary...and yet sometimes necessary. Recently some of these threads that show many are confused about spiritual death and the fall as historically understood by the believing church I find a bit strange.

I think the books creeds are like a door way to promote biblical study and discussion......a good starting point to get the mind and spirit thinking.
Many ignore these helps and repeat errors that have already been set aside.
That is my concern.

 

[Tom Bryant]

If all one needed was the Bible, there would be no need for ministers. As far as a treatise on Christian theology, the Bible is a cluttered, disorganized and unsystematic hodgepodge of revelation. If someone were to ask you, "What must I believe to be a Christian," and you simply handed him a Bible, you would be doing him a disservice. One would do better to offer a plow to a hungry child.

But creeds are a service. They're a ministry. They answer the question, "What do Christians believe," in a concise and systematic fashion. The ministers have plowed the Scriptures and sown to them, and the creeds are the fruit thereof ground fine, moistened and flavored and placed in single-serving sized baby-food jars.

--------------------------



Now before some of you all go off half-cocked about my statement about the Scriptures not being all one needs, think about what I just wrote. I'm not saying that the Bible is insufficient, or that it is incomplete. I simply said it's fragmented and disorganized. But it's that way by design for two reasons:

1. It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter, Prov. 25:2
2. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, Gen. 3:19

It wasn't designed to yield its treasures to the slothful, or to the profane, and babes are certainly not equal to the task. The church would have no ministers if they weren't needed.

Wow, God's Word is fragmented and disorganized... I'm sure that's a new one to God who is supremely organized. Thanks for putting the rationale for creeds so clearly and succinctly. Thanks for making me certain that I am right about what I have said.

Your ideas about why pastors are necessary makes me think you could use that reasoning to set up a pope and would no longer need the idea of the priesthood of believers. After all only a trained theologian can understand the Bible.

 

[jaigner]

Tom,DHK,thinking stuff,

I like that we all agree that being biblically knowledgeable is of primary importance. Any books, and teachings are secondary...and yet sometimes necessary.

I think the books creeds are like a door way to promote biblical study and discussion......a good starting point to get the mind and spirit thinking.

I'm in agreement for the most part. I absolutely believe that the Bible is the final authority.

But in our corporate worship we use many other sources. Creeds, hymns, other songs, and the like are all systematized conduits for the belief that unifies us.

Then again, there are times when I've sung songs before I realized I didn't agree with them entirely. The same would go for any other non-sacred text that we use. We shouldn't check our brains at the door. We have to examine everything.

Again, I'm sure that most baptists, if they thought about it, would agree with the teachings of, for instance, the Apostles' Creed. I find it a shame that they are so leery of traditional creeds that they can't bring themselves to use these statements of faith.

At the same time, if you put any of those texts to catchy tunes, baptists would probably love them.

 

[Tom Bryant]

Tom,DHK,thinking stuff,

I like that we all agree that being biblically knowledgeable is of primary importance. Any books, and teachings are secondary...and yet sometimes necessary. Recently some of these threads that show many are confused about spiritual death and the fall as historically understood by the believing church I find a bit strange.

I think the books creeds are like a door way to promote biblical study and discussion......a good starting point to get the mind and spirit thinking.
Many ignore these helps and repeat errors that have already been set aside.
That is my concern.

Maybe I am just being hard headed or maybe just too obtuse, but to encourage studying the creeds as a door way to studying the Bible is, for me, putting the cart before the horse. What I would say is that studying the Bible ought to be the door way to studying the creeds. It is a necessary first step. By studying the Word- and I am NOT saying that you are short changing studying the Bible - we are then able to study any creeds our church and/or denomination might believe.

I think it ought to be done through a thorough expositional preaching of the Bible.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If all one needed was the Bible, there would be no need for ministers. As far as a treatise on Christian theology, the Bible is a cluttered, disorganized and unsystematic hodgepodge of revelation. If someone were to ask you, "What must I believe to be a Christian," and you simply handed him a Bible, you would be doing him a disservice. One would do better to offer a plow to a hungry child.

But creeds are a service. They're a ministry. They answer the question, "What do Christians believe," in a concise and systematic fashion. The ministers have plowed the Scriptures and sown to them, and the creeds are the fruit thereof ground fine, moistened and seasoned and placed in single-serving sized baby-food jars.

--------------------------



Now before some of you all go off half-cocked about my statement about the Scriptures not being all one needs, think about what I just wrote. I'm not saying that the Bible is insufficient, or that it is incomplete. I simply said it's fragmented and disorganized. But it's that way by design for two reasons:

1. It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter, Prov. 25:2
2. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, Gen. 3:19

It wasn't designed to yield its treasures to the slothful, or to the profane, and babes are certainly not equal to the task. The church would have no ministers if they weren't needed.

Question. Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son or does the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father? And how much importance to you want to put on that position?

 

[glfredrick]

I've always found that the Baptist aversion to creeds was more the name "creed" and the tradition that surrounds that than the actual fact of what any given creed says. That, in large part, stems from our separatist roots, but as I said above, about 1/3 of all the current creeds and confessions that have existed since the beginning of the church are specifically Baptist.

We Baptists do have our own creeds that many of us use every Sunday without even realizing it... :smilewinkgrin:

Once saved always saved...
Whosoever will...
Come to Jesus...
Jesus saves...
Believer's Baptism...
Lord's Supper...
Take the hand of the pastor...
Priesthood of the believer...
Vote of the members...
Just one more verse...
Sing the first, third, and fifth verses...

And the list goes on and on. None of the above are found as texts of Scripture in that format, which means that those words, just like other creeds or confessions, are tidy summarizations of other more lengthy and detailed theology or doctrine.

 

[DHK]

Tom,DHK,thinking stuff,
I think the books creeds are like a door way to promote biblical study and discussion......a good starting point to get the mind and spirit thinking.
Many ignore these helps and repeat errors that have already been set aside.
That is my concern.

The other side of the coin is true also. Many non-thinking individuals going by a creed would be repeating the same mistakes contained in the creed and thus the errors are perpetuated. Creeds are fallible statements made by fallible men.

 

[jaigner]

I've always found that the Baptist aversion to creeds was more the name "creed" and the tradition that surrounds that than the actual fact of what any given creed says.

We Baptists do have our own creeds that many of us use every Sunday without even realizing it.

Once saved always saved...
Whosoever will...
Come to Jesus...
Jesus saves...
Believer's Baptism...
Lord's Supper...
Take the hand of the pastor...
Priesthood of the believer...
Vote of the members...
Just one more verse...
Sing the first, third, and fifth verses...

Big, big thumbs up. Baptists use creeds even if they don't admit it. And they are very systematic in their use of them. If it serves their purpose, they will adopt creeds.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Tom,DHK,thinking stuff,

I like that we all agree that being biblically knowledgeable is of primary importance. Any books, and teachings are secondary...and yet sometimes necessary. Recently some of these threads that show many are confused about spiritual death and the fall as historically understood by the believing church I find a bit strange.

I think the books creeds are like a door way to promote biblical study and discussion......a good starting point to get the mind and spirit thinking.
Many ignore these helps and repeat errors that have already been set aside.
That is my concern.

From a Catholic/Orthodox perspective if a creed is established it is the basis for a "saving statement of faith" in which case if there is a issue with an aspect of it that you don't agree with it, then your salvation is considered to be in danger. Also note it's a base line for what you must believe as a Christian. Certainly the theif on the cross didn't have to recite such a statement. Didn't have to have a clear understanding of the Trinity. He just acknowledged that Jesus was righteous, he had a kingdom, and authority. He beged Jesus to remember him when he came into his kingdom. He may have some understanding that Jesus was God. But clearly his bottom line of belief and understanding was less than those who recite the creed.
Do you believe in "One Holy Catholic Church"? That Christ established one Church a seperate church a universal church claiming orthodoxy that is visible? I doubt it. Most if they believe in one holy universal church it is only Orthodox in the sense it is made up of actual regenerate believers and it certainly is not visible. Yet creedal churches want us to recognize this aspect.

 

[Tom Bryant]

You all keep equating any song that is sung with a creed, and you might be right. But you have proved my point. We sing a song that contains something we don't believe, but because it's a creed we now believe something that is unbiblical. We have made singing, saying a creed our means of teaching biblical truth. Somehow I don't think this is how we ought to be doing it.

I don't agree with your definition of songs being a creed, but you seem to accept that definition, so I think you are proving my point that we ought to start with thorough Biblical knowledge then, if we have time start studying the creeds.

I don't have an issue with the many of the creeds. I like them, but they are a Reader's Digest Condensed version of the Bible. I'd rather expose my people to the complete, unabridged book.