Read a Creed in Church?

[Iconoclast]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
Next time i stop in glendale at the truckstop....you can come and examine me my friend.....bring your bible and we will see what is what you pick the topic, we will take a look together.
In the interest of saving time I still have this prepared statement for you:

Quote:
"Icon, to be frank, your “specially revealed” Archie Bunker scriptural interpretations which you eagerly await to begin presenting to “help me” understand “your” Deterministic system seems more in tune to the constant beat of the drums that comes from a person without a mind of his own to reason with or ability to change his beat. I’m fed up with your evasive and obnoxious debate tactics nor do I expect you to be rational or your values and goals within a debate to be of interest to me, so your efforts to push your agenda is best ignored by me. I’ve decided to no longer waste my time to attempt to have a rational and ethical debate with you which would only serve to frustrate me by trying to, so don’t bother wasting your time to try to engage me in a debate. These attempts will merely amount to nothing more than a rather comical reminder these ignorant and irritating broadcasts of yours resemble the sounds of an “annoying false teaching parrot” to me and also reminds me of the tactics used by cult members who commonly go about using threatening and accusing with “cleverly” veiled words or by use of "your highlighted scriptural interpretations to suggest" that your opponents aren't saved if they don't believe in your "special creedal enlightenments".

K?"

Further, to be direct regarding your attempt at another veiled invitation to “meet” me, I still have this prepared statement:

Quote:
"Icon, to be frank, I find you to be extremely obnoxious and offensive so in the interest of not being prompted to have to test my composure, and while taking into consideration my physical abilities and "past" experiences, by which the effects have certainly proved to be quite overpowering, dreadful and detrimental regarding my answer to the uncontrolled “motivations” of an antagonist who is wanting to “meet” me for “discussion”, for rational and ethical reasons I will have to reverently decline your invitation."

Well... I offer to meet with open bibles and you pick any topic and let's see what is what...and surprise ,surprise, you decline.....lol...I understand. You would not want to be embarrassed by a truck driver...haha. You were so sure I could not speak scripture at all a few posts ago, but I give you a chance and you decline.....yes I see.

"Icon, to be frank, I find you to be extremely obnoxious and offensive so in the interest of not being prompted to have to test my composure, and while taking into consideration my physical abilities and "past" experiences, by which the effects have certainly proved to be quite overpowering

Whatever that means....lol.....violence is not the answer my friend.....so...you are sparing me from your"physical abilities".....oh boy...thanks for having mercy upon me.as if that might happen,,,,lol.
If you spared me from anything it would be your desire to launch into long winded carnal philosophy.....which would be a real waste of my time...so yes...thanks for declining,
You offer no scripture here, I am sure you have none to offer there either.I will be free to speak to those God wants me too.You can retreat into your shell now as you have no credibility whatsoever with this lame posting , and your snide remarks.
I have no need to speak with you if this is what you are about.

 

[Benjamin]

I think this church gives the typical example of where most creed followers put their authority:

Our Doctrine​

The Scriptures alone and in their entirety are the only rule we have for faith and practice. But because of the increasing number of church groups who are drifting from the Scriptures, we have committed ourselves to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith as a guide to help express our convictions on the main points of Christian doctrine. We are firmly committed to the doctrines of grace which exalt the glory of God and humble sinful man in the issues of salvation.​

Hope Reformed Baptist Church, Medford, N.Y.​

So pertaining to "anybody" closely following such leadership they are bound to be obligated to abide by forcing interpretations of the scriptures to fit these manmade doctrines ... transparency and honesty would be key concerning how they have predetermined that they will approach the scriptures:

"I would not only not oppose them reading their creed in church but for purposes of full discloser and transparency I would strongly suggest they should post their doctrinal guide on the wall, on a large sign, just as highlighted, above the their pastor's head for a warning to all that attend their church as a clue as to what they are dealing with. - (Maybe between a plaque of the 5 Commandments of TULIP and a picture of John Calvin burning heretics at the stake.)"​

I would think members who do not dare question the obsessive claims of "authority' of such creeds are vulnerable to cult-like beliefs that no others are not specially enlightened. I suspect anyone that openly question the authority of that creed in this church would face a similar although modern day attitude as that of John Calvin from the pastor and "faithful members" concerning them being not saved etc.​

 

[12strings]

He clearly said his C & Cs were a tool to be used to "better understand the scriptures". This is ERROR.

Again, there is nothing wrong with having a tool to help one understand scritpures...every post on this board is (supposedly) such a tool. There's nothing wrong with that statement...The way He uses them, does, however, betray too much trust put in them.

 

[Winman]

Again, there is nothing wrong with having a tool to help one understand scritpures...every post on this board is (supposedly) such a tool. There's nothing wrong with that statement...The way He uses them, does, however, betray too much trust put in them.

If a creed is accurate and agrees with the word of God, all is well. But what if that creed teaches complete error and folks interpret scripture to agree with that error?

None of us believes that a person must be baptized to be saved, but what if your church's SOF insisted men must be baptized and pulled this verse out of context as a proof text?

Mar 1:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

What if your church taught this verse and put special emphasis on "and is baptized"? What if children were taught this over and over again?

This is the danger of creeds. Icon insists HIS creeds are truth, even when non-Cals can provide much scripture that refutes many views expressed in his creeds.

No, the scriptures are our authority, not creeds. Creeds are OFTEN wrong.

 

[12strings]

I think this church gives the typical example of where most creed followers put their authority:

Hope Reformed Baptist Church, Medford, N.Y.​

You would be correct in avoiding "Creed followers." However, not all who USE a creed have put their authority in such a creed. This statement, while perhaps worded in a haughty and unwise way in their view of other churches, does NOT necessarily mean that the church places their confession of faith ABOVE scripture.

So pertaining to "anybody" closely following such leadership they are bound to be obligated to abide by forcing interpretations of the scriptures to fit these manmade doctrines ... transparency and honesty would be key concerning how they have predetermined that they will approach the scriptures:

If one beleives that the confession merely expresses biblical truth, not man-made doctrines, then their confession is no different in function than a pastor telling a prospective member that they cannot join if they do not believe Jesus really rose from the dead...This confession is simply much more specific.

In both cases, the church is using human words to express what they believe the scriptures to teach.

"I would not only not oppose them reading their creed in church but for purposes of full discloser and transparency I would strongly suggest they should post their doctrinal guide on the wall, on a large sign, just as highlighted, above the their pastor's head for a warning to all that attend their church as a clue as to what they are dealing with. - (Maybe between a plaque of the 5 Commandments of TULIP and a picture of John Calvin burning heretics at the stake.)"​

1. Churches SHOULD make reasonable efforts to express what they believe to new people in an honest way.

2. You don't like calvinists...got it.

I would think members who do not dare question the obsessive claims of "authority' of such creeds are vulnerable to cult-like beliefs that no others are not specially enlightened. I suspect anyone that openly question the authority of that creed in this church would face a similar although modern day attitude as that of John Calvin from the pastor and "faithful members" concerning them being not saved etc.​

[/QUOTE]

1. The statement you quoted makes no obsessive claims of authority. It states that scripture is authority, and for clarity's sake, here is what we believe scritpure teaches about some major doctrines.

2. Based on REAL-WORLD EXPERIENCE WITH PEOPLE AT REFORMED BAPTIST CHURCHES...I would say that the most likely response would be that if someone questioned the confession, they would be kindly asked what parts they disagree with, and there would be a calm, mature discussion of scriptural teaching, with no accusations about one person wanting to burn the other at the stake. Both parties would likely affirm that scripture carries final authority, but would disagree about what it teaches on a few points. If the dissagreement was major, then either the church, or the person themselves would probably decide to worship elsewhere. If minor (you know, concerning election, or something like that)...the person would likely be allowed to join the church, but perhaps not be given teaching responsibilities..

Agian, based on REAL-WORLD SITUATIONS that I personally know of, non-calvinistic members are allowed to join (without questioning their salvation.) but are not allowed to teach things contrary to the church's beliefs...which is no different than another free-will church who wouldn't want a calvinist teaching their members about election.

 

[Iconoclast]

12strings

You would be correct in avoiding "Creed followers." However, not all who USE a creed have put their authority in such a creed.

Whatever someone believes is their creed. I do not use a creed .
I use the 1689 confession of faith, and A Baptist Catechism with Commentary,by WR.Downing.....I use Jl Daggs manual of theology, I use J.P. Boyce Abstract of systematic theology, I use Berkoffs Systematic Theology...as study tools...

Each and everyone of these tools places and maintains scripture first,as the only rule of faith and practice.

This statement, while perhaps worded in a haughty and unwise way in their view of other churches, does NOT necessarily mean that the church places their confession of faith ABOVE scripture.

12 strings.....the statement is not haughty at all. It is upfront and direct,and quite accurate. WE ARE SURROUNDED.... by liberals ,Rc churches, assorted pentecostal churches...we are one of the few confessional churches around here.
We do not seek in anyway to conceal who we are Hope,Reformed, Baptist church. No bait and switch...no tricks.... All churches "say" they believe the bible.The real question is....What does the bible teach ?

A proper confession of faith.....answers that question for any person who wants to know what to expect if they come to hear the word preached.

We see the truths that many others have also seen known as Calvinism. We say....here we stand. We say....the bible teaches these things...

A church with no statement of faith..is open to all manner of error ,,,,like the BB is.
No one defends the truth of the scripture alone as fervently as The pastor of the church here. In fact I have visited many of the Arbca churches and there is a complete unity in all the churches on this.

The 1689 is a good starting place. I do not believe everything in it. I believe most of it is right on the doctrinal portions...I do not agree with the idea that the Pope was the anti-christ.as it is written. I am not 'forced to share that view".

If one believes that the confession merely expresses biblical truth, not man-made doctrines, then their confession is no different in function than a pastor telling a prospective member that they cannot join if they do not believe Jesus really rose from the dead...This confession is simply much more specific.

Correct .....not only more specific, but better written,and thought out to give the learner a more concise way of gathering scriptures on one topic,and articulating them in a way that is useful in evangelism.

In both cases, the church is using human words to express what they believe the scriptures to teach.

Exactly.....the men who wrote them seek to boil down .....where do we stand on truth.What does the bible teach on this?

1. Churches SHOULD make reasonable efforts to express what they believe to new people in an honest way.

You see here on BB.....someone says....I do not like calvin, so i do not use the term calvinism to support this man....

They get jumped on with people saying...see they want calvins teaching but not calvin...lol.....calvin did not make up the teaching.the scripture contains it. he wrote about much of it,and not infallably

So ARBCA churches come right out front and say what we believe and where we stand.

These tools expose and weed out all manner of false teaching and inconsistency as posted by Winman, Benjamin,Ach, Van and others offer 24/7. That is why they rail against it all the time,they know what they are doing.
They would be allowed to visit,listen, and discuss their ideas and novelties, but they would not be allowed membership as they do not confess the faith we do. They believing other things should seek out other places that allow for any and everything without any doctrinal stand.
The Eldership would see that they were about sowing discord and seek to protect the flock which is under their charge.

2. You don't like calvinists...got it.

This is the heart of this issue.

I would think members who do not dare question the obsessive claims of "authority' of such creeds are vulnerable to cult-like beliefs that no others are not specially enlightened. I suspect anyone that openly question the authority of that creed in this church would face a similar although modern day attitude as that of John Calvin from the pastor and "faithful members" concerning them being not saved etc.​

During fellowship times there is biblical discussion,agreement and disagreement to be had. As long as it does not turn into an effort to undermine the work. That is the advantage of the confession. If someone denies the trinity...we can say...you are denying the scriptural truth of the trinity and you knew before you became a member here that that is what we openly confess.
There are some persons in our church who are members who do not agree on all things in the confession, but they like most of the teaching and are still unsettled and learning.They do not disrupt things however.
there are no doctrinal police who FORCE THEM to believe.

1. The statement you quoted makes no obsessive claims of authority. It states that scripture is authority, and for clarity's sake, here is what we believe scritpure teaches about some major doctrines.

Correct:wavey: anyone is welcome to call the pastor and discuss it with him.

2. Based on REAL-WORLD EXPERIENCE WITH PEOPLE AT REFORMED BAPTIST CHURCHES...I would say that the most likely response would be that if someone questioned the confession, they would be kindly asked what parts they disagree with, and there would be a calm, mature discussion of scriptural teaching, with no accusations about one person wanting to burn the other at the stake. Both parties would likely affirm that scripture carries final authority, but would disagree about what it teaches on a few points. If the dissagreement was major, then either the church, or the person themselves would probably decide to worship elsewhere. If minor (you know, concerning election, or something like that)...the person would likely be allowed to join the church, but perhaps not be given teaching responsibilities..

Exactly correct!

Agian, based on REAL-WORLD SITUATIONS that I personally know of, non-calvinistic members are allowed to join (without questioning their salvation.) but are not allowed to teach things contrary to the church's beliefs...which is no different than another free-will church who wouldn't want a calvinist teaching their members about election.

yes,,,this is exactly the case:wavey:

 

[Benjamin]

You would be correct in avoiding "Creed followers." However, not all who USE a creed have put their authority in such a creed.

There you go again, right from the beginning of your argument, on the all/some - thing.
Now:

If one beleives that the confession merely expresses biblical truth, not man-made doctrines…

““Merely” expresses Biblical truth and not man-made doctrines”??? - “merely”??? Wow! That is quite an artistic display of euphemistic expression you got there!

But, let’s break these premises down:

(1) Taking out the euphemism about “one merely believing” we are left with what they actually believe about the confession, “expresses Biblical truth” and that it is “not man-made doctrine”

…then their confession is no different in function than a pastor telling a prospective member that they cannot join if they do not believe Jesus really rose from the dead...This confession is simply much more specific.

“then” – according to these premises (1), the conclusion you offer us is based on a comparison (this time by use of a dysphemism – comparing to a disbelieve of Jesus not raising from the dead – a “heretic”!) to contend for and justify telling a perspective member, here comes more euphemism (cannot join), based on this comparison of disbelief of the confession to a heretic.

Conclusion broken down:

(2) Justification of disallowing membership by comparing one that doesn’t believe in the confessions to a heretic.

"Then" (therefore) a little more euphemistic rhetoric (“simply much more specific”) while making the "plea" why we should believe your argument’s premises and conclusion to be true - “This confession is simply much more specific.” ->

IOWs, your reply pertaining to my argument:

Originally Posted by Benjamin:
So pertaining to "anybody" closely following such leadership they are bound to be obligated to abide by forcing interpretations of the scriptures to fit these manmade doctrines ... transparency and honesty would be key concerning how they have predetermined that they will approach the scriptures:

Your argument is that (1) the confession expresses Biblical truth and not man-made doctrines. (2) based on this premise it is justifiable to look at those who oppose the confession as heretics and disallowing a person’s membership in a “Christian” church according to the doctrines in the confession.

And this argument of yours contradicts my argument pertaining to the “authority given to the confession and not the Bible” ->(via cult-like enforcement – comparing those who do not interpret scriptures within the guidelines of the confession to unbelievers and heretics and disallowing their membership):

…following such leadership they are bound to be obligated to abide by forcing interpretations of the scriptures to fit these manmade doctrines ...

-> How???

Now, my conclusion was that:

… "transparency and honesty would be key concerning how they have predetermined that they will approach the scriptures":

On my premise that people are obligated to abide to forcing interpretations to fit man-made doctrines.

And your conclusion to my argument is that (1) the confession expresses Biblical truth and is not man-made doctrine (2) It is justifiable to compare those opposed interpreting the confessions to be Biblical truths to heretics (3) Therefore, it is justifiable to disallow “anyone” in opposition to this claimed authority on which “truth is based” membership in that CHRISTIAN??? church.

Ah,... my argument goes to show “where” authority is placed and “what” the consequences against those who oppose such rule are thought as – for example, “heretics!” - as well as calls for honesty and transparency - but hard to be transparent when one attempts to avoid the bottom line!

Sorry, but seems to me you unwittingly proved my statements true by agreeing with them.

*(see below) That said, let’s examine these statements from a member of that church who claims it is honest to say that the scripture is their only authority:

First we see an attempts to justify their not concealing where they "truly" base authority against the heretics by demonstrating how they perceive their doctrinal statement to be true:

We do not seek in anyway to conceal who we are Hope,Reformed, Baptist church. No bait and switch...no tricks.... All churches "say" they believe the bible.

Does “claim” to be transparent and honest, while trying to justify where they place authority – “because everybody says they believe the Bible”.

But goes on with more double-talk which actually demonstrates where the authority for their belief comes from:

A proper confession of faith.....answers that question for any person who wants to know…

We see the truths that many others have also seen known as Calvinism. We say....here we stand. We say....the bible teaches these things...

No one defends the truth of the scripture alone as fervently as The pastor of the church here.

Obviously the leader of this church begs the question about the truth of scriptures based on the confession – this point is not only fallacy but demonstrates just how “fervently” or “pushy” this pastor probable gets toward declaring the confessions to be Biblical truth.

Exactly.....the men who wrote them seek to boil down .....where do we stand on truth.What does the bible teach on this?

Demonstrates placing authority in the work of these men’s scriptural interpretation as where they stand on truth…this person (a member of that church) now demonstrates that he can hardly contain himself not to start “proof-texting” as he often does that those who do not believe in these interpretations do not believe in the authority of the “church fathers” and will go on to make veiled suggestions that that those who don’t agree with them are lost. (a cult-like teaching of the these confessions as authority)

These tools expose and weed out all manner of false teaching and inconsistency…

What tools? Scripture? No, the interpretations from these men (confession authors) these tools are the “authority”, not one’s own reasoning about from the scripture itself.

As long as it does not turn into an effort to undermine the work. That is the advantage of the confession.

*People are allowed to disagree as long as it doesn't “undermine the work” of the “non-authoritative” confessions. ROFL!!!:laugh:

Agian, based on REAL-WORLD SITUATIONS...

Based on a "REAL-WORLD SITUATION" rather than your opening and finishing premises of all/some, do you not see a problem here, right on this board, in a real world situation concerning the "truth" about "some" -"logically" placing authority in creeds and how others attempt to justify this action of using creeds based on "merely" euphemistic reasoning?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

as study tools...:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Iconoclast]

Benjamin

What tools? Scripture? No, the interpretations from these men (confession authors) these tools are the “authority”, not one’s own reasoning about from the scripture itself.

As if "your own Carnal reasoning" would be superior to the bible teaching pastors who wrote the catechisms and confessions...somehow what they offer is not as good as what you Benjamin offer:love2:
yes this is becoming clear now.....studying greek hebrew,,,seminary training, extensive study...cannot compare....to Benjamin.That is really what these foolish long-winded posts are about.

No catechism, No confession, No Godly teachers anywhere....just Benjamin writing about ...if t= truth,,,,,and f = something else, and if we do not beg the question, or whatever other thing you ramble about.....that is really what is important. No pastor or group can have anything correct...yes I see what you are saying alright....:laugh::laugh:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Benjamin




As if "your own Carnal reasoning" would be superior to the bible teaching pastors who wrote the catechisms and confessions...somehow what they offer is not as good as what you Benjamin offer:love2:
yes this is becoming clear now.....studying greek hebrew,,,seminary training, extensive study...cannot compare....to Benjamin.That is really what these foolish long-winded posts are about.

No catechism, No confession, No Godly teachers anywhere....just Benjamin writing about ...if t= truth,,,,,and f = something else, and if we do not beg the question, or whatever other thing you ramble about.....that is really what is important. No pastor or group can have anything correct...yes I see what you are saying alright....:laugh::laugh:

You nailed it...and that's the true mark of an Arminian...ie, theology distorted in the direction of the self. It is a gospel that perserves a determinative role for personal choice. Just call it what it is & be done with it.

 

[Yeshua1]

You nailed it...and that's the true mark of an Arminian...ie, theology distorted in the direction of the self. It is a gospel that perserves a determinative role for personal choice. Just call it what it is & be done with it.

Interesting though those of the past who were arminians saw the grace of God in saving them almost same fashion as calvinists, saw themselves as sinners without hope apart from grace of God!

 

[12strings]

I will not try to defend everything someone from another church I've never heard of says, but you are misunderstanding my post on a few levels:

““Merely” expresses Biblical truth and not man-made doctrines”??? - “merely”??? Wow! That is quite an artistic display of euphemistic expression you got there!

1. Obviously, what I meant was: "merely expressions of biblical truth" as opposed to "statements claiming to be truth in and of themselves, on par with scriptures." ie, "merely" expresses that they are lesser than scriptures themselves.

(1) Taking out the euphemism about “one merely believing” we are left with what they actually believe about the confession, “expresses Biblical truth” and that it is “not man-made doctrine”

...Exactly, just as every baptist believes that believers baptism accurately expresses biblical truth and not man-made doctrine. I don't understand the problem here.

“then” – according to these premises (1), the conclusion you offer us is based on a comparison (this time by use of a dysphemism – comparing to a disbelieve of Jesus not raising from the dead – a “heretic”!) to contend for and justify telling a perspective member, here comes more euphemism (cannot join), based on this comparison of disbelief of the confession to a heretic.

(2) Justification of disallowing membership by comparing one that doesn’t believe in the confessions to a heretic.

2. This is not what I said, or meant...I was merely using the most extreme example I could to show that each individual church has the right to determine who they allow for members...my analogy has nothing to do with comparing non-calvinists to heretics...it had everything to do with showing that each church can use various criteria to determine membership, WITHOUT DENYING THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURES.

My example would work just as well if we discussed a presby or methodist who wanted to join a baptist church, but maintained that their infant baptism was valid. Most baptist churches would not allow him to join...and we would not charge them with elevating their statement of faith (that includes believers baptism) above scriptures...Nor would that church likely question the person's salvation, they would simply say, "this is what we require for membership."

And your conclusion to my argument is that (1) the confession expresses Biblical truth and is not man-made doctrine

Every church believes their statement of faith to express biblical truth. Again, I don't understand the problem.

(2) It is justifiable to compare those opposed interpreting the confessions to be Biblical truths to heretics

I have shown above that this is not what I meant, I merely used the most extreme example I could think of...the baptism example would work just as well.

(3) Therefore, it is justifiable to disallow “anyone” in opposition to this claimed authority on which “truth is based” membership in that CHRISTIAN??? church.

Who's questioning salvations now? ;-)

Also, as stated above the Baptism example answers this easily. Every Baptist church requires baptism, though most would say it is not a salvation issue if one believes in infant baptism. They simply have their statement of beliefs that they require for membership.

Based on a "REAL-WORLD SITUATION" rather than your opening and finishing premises of all/some, do you not see a problem here, right on this board, in a real world situation concerning the "truth" about "some" -"logically" placing authority in creeds and how others attempt to justify this action of using creeds based on "merely" euphemistic reasoning?

Personally yes, I have seen that occasionally. But simply having a confession and using it doesn't mean one has surrendered the authority of scriptures.

 

[Iconoclast]

12strings

I will not try to defend everything someone from another church I've never heard of says, but you are misunderstanding my post on a few levels:

your posts make sense because you have no agenda.he is twisting what you say...because it does make absolute sense as does this post...which will soon be attacked:wavey:

1. Obviously, what I meant was: "merely expressions of biblical truth" as opposed to "statements claiming to be truth in and of themselves, on par with scriptures." ie, "merely" expresses that they are lesser than scriptures themselves.
...Exactly, just as every baptist believes that believers baptism accurately expresses biblical truth and not man-made doctrine. I don't understand the problem here.

Exactly...there is no problem...so he must insert some kind of philosophical objection, or quibble about your words, notice he is not offering any scriptural instruction or discussion.....he is just speaking evil about what he does not understand,and about a pastor who would expose his evil designs in less than 5 minutes discussion.:thumbs:

2. This is not what I said, or meant...I was merely using the most extreme example I could to show that each individual church has the right to determine who they allow for members...my analogy has nothing to do with comparing non-calvinists to heretics...it had everything to do with showing that each church can use various criteria to determine membership, WITHOUT DENYING THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURES.

My example would work just as well if we discussed a presby or methodist who wanted to join a baptist church, but maintained that their infant baptism was valid. Most baptist churches would not allow him to join...and we would not charge them with elevating their statement of faith (that includes believers baptism) above scriptures...Nor would that church likely question the person's salvation, they would simply say, "this is what we require for membership."

Yes......so a confessional church, or even a church with a strong doctrinal statement of faith....would address the padeo baptism issue,and say we do not see that teaching in SCRIPTURE...as our confession clearly states:thumbs:

Every church believes their statement of faith to express biblical truth. Again, I don't understand the problem.

There is no problem unless someone has an evil agenda.

Who's questioning salvations now? ;-)

Ah....12 strings...you are not suppose to notice when He does that!!!

Also, as stated above the Baptism example answers this easily. Every Baptist church requires baptism, though most would say it is not a salvation issue if one believes in infant baptism. They simply have their statement of beliefs that they require for membership.

Yes...there it is!!!!

Another helpful post!

 

[Benjamin]

But simply having a confession and using it doesn't mean one has surrendered the authority of scriptures.

That’s all you got is to resort to claiming what I clearly pointed out you logically said is not what you meant, to throw in a desperate attempt at a personal attack by suggesting I was questioning one’s salvation accompanied with an arrogant wink and then to end with this ridiculous strawman?! By "simply"...

And now I’m supposed to start over and chase down what you are “merely” repeating now, after you have clearly demonstrated that you have missed my point in regards to relying on your- all/some strawman fallacious reasoning throughout your argument, …again? No thanks.

 

[Benjamin]

Really, who can cast blame on the Calvinists for following creeds and confessions to better express “their” beliefs of what the scriptures must reveal as truth?

The mark of a Calvinist is to claim that the scriptures are their authority and in the same breath turn right around and desperately attempt to justify their faithful following of manmade creeds and/or confessions by claiming that since the authors of such, who used “their” philosophical “reasoning” to support it by scriptures, somehow places that scriptural authority into the creeds. I get it:

What they ignorantly fail to realize is that they have just displayed that they have unwittingly transferred the authority of the scriptures from their own reasoning to the other men’s reasoning concerning the meaning of these scriptures. (Col 2:8) Therefore the mark of the Calvinist is to demonstrate their own poor reasoning skills over and over again seen in that they can’t hold on to a thought long enough for their reasoning to be of value to them anyway. No problem guys, I understand.

Don’t worry, I get it. We

 

[Berean]

Would anyone be opposed to reading a Creed congregationally in a worship service...or what about a corporate prayer that a pastor wrote and had people read outloud?

Answer carefully, because your answer must be consistent with your answer to: Is it ok to sing "Holy, Holy, Holy"...or sing a song that your song-leader wrote?

Have fun.

2nd London Baptist of 1689 or Westminster Confession would be my suggestion

 

[Alive in Christ]

Would anyone be opposed to reading a Creed congregationally in a worship service...or what about a corporate prayer that a pastor wrote and had people read outloud?

Any christian, or group of christians, who have been taught well will have absolutely NO NEED of a creed.

 

[12strings]

That’s all you got is to resort to claiming what I clearly pointed out you logically said is not what you meant, to throw in a desperate attempt at a personal attack by suggesting I was questioning one’s salvation accompanied with an arrogant wink and then to end with this ridiculous strawman?! By "simply"...

And now I’m supposed to start over and chase down what you are “merely” repeating now, after you have clearly demonstrated that you have missed my point in regards to relying on your- all/some strawman fallacious reasoning throughout your argument, …again? No thanks.

1. Thinking back on my original response, I realize that by using the diety of Christ as a comparison for disagreeing with a confession of faith was an unwise choice. I apologize if anyone thought I was comparing non-calvinists to heretics. That was not may intention.

2. You are correct that my snide remark about you questioning one's salvation unhelpful to the debate and only served to take a jab at you. I apologize. However, I would like to ask what exactly you mean when you write about a "Christian" church in quotation marks? Are you not saying they may or may not be a christian church? ...ie, they may nor may not be Christians?

3. I am still convinced that you are unfairly characterizing Calvinistic Baptists, and Calvinistic churches who have those beliefs in a confession of faith. The simple fact is that nearly all who hold to calvinistic soteriology believe it because they see it in scriptures...not because they know it is not in scripture, but believe some confession of faith more than scriptures. There may be a few who elevate confessions above scripture...but in the one's I have encountered, It is not many.

 

[12strings]

Any christian, or group of christians, who have been taught well will have absolutely NO NEED of a creed.

Would you say they also in no further need of teaching, or reminding of what they have already been taught? That once a person learns a biblical topic, they have no need to ever hear it again? Ie, if you are in a small group of people that you know are christians, there is no need to remind them that Jesus died for their sins?

This is the purpose of reading something like the apostles creed in church...a reminder of what most people already know.

 

[12strings]

2nd London Baptist of 1689 or Westminster Confession would be my suggestion

That would take a long time...