Read a Creed in Church?

[12strings]

Not trying to defend any one church, but I get leery when anyone seems to think of the past with rosy-eyed glasses. Here's a few of my thoughts...although I am admittedly NOT one who was alive durring that time...I'm an UN-agedman.

I'm going to paint with a rather large brush, for each church is supposedly and independent group and the area may have a bit different view.

Relief of the poor - does the typical SB church still actively reach out (without being asked) to seek the poorest and destitute, or is it a delegated task?

This one, I have no idea about what SB churches did in the 50's. Does the fact that it was in their hymnals mean they all practiced it? Also did their charity and care extend to the poor and destitute Black community? I suspect that for many, it did not.

Secret and family devotions - as recent thread had those reporting that in some churches folks don't even come with a copy of the Scriptures.
How are they to be actively engaged in religiously educating their children if they don't show respect and exalt the Scriptures above all things in this world.

I suspect that a higher portion DID bring bibles to church in the 50s...but it seems, from knowing the aging population of my own church, that very few of them practiced family devotions...I know of one old lady who did it every day, and it has born great fruit in the lives of her godly children and grandchildren. Perhaps it was more of an emphasis in other SB churches than it was in mine.

Deportment - in the 50's the SB did not attend to ungodly and worldly activities. Dances, movies, and other such activities were held as worldly and not appropriate for the believer. Can you imagine what those folks would consider the modern SB worship and conduct?

I have mixed feelings about this one...on the one hand, I am not a fundy-basher, and believe that many fundamentalists had godly motives for their prohibitions...however I would say that SBC in the 50's was influenced somewhat by the fundamentalism of the 1st half of the century, and perhaps went so far as to declare somethings sinful that were not sinful in themselves.

"avoid all tattling, backbiting, and excessive anger; to abstain from the sale of, and use of, intoxicating drinks as a beverage;" Do I need to really address these? What SB church would rebuke or even remove a member for not abstaining from any in this list?

Of course we have whole other threads for discussing alcohol...but I for one, don't think that phrase should be something that one is required to agree to for church membership...Regarding discipline in General...It seems that there is mmore talk about church discipline now than in the SBC past...refering to my church again, I know that 6 years ago, pretty much every member who had ever joined since 1960 was STILL A MEMBER. (even dead people).

Christian courtesy in speech - as evidenced on the board that is working out really well. I have a suspicion that some folks have an agenda of actually driving others off the BB and proclaiming to them self that it is righteous. I know this isn't a church, but one can imagine what the heart is allowed to express here is a hidden disease at church.

Again, I have no evidence, but I suspect churches in those days had their interpersonal problems just like we do...Perhaps statements like this regularly refered to helped to remind people against such things...but again, was their courtesy in speech extended to all peoples, of all colors....? Or just those who were most like themselves?

My point is not that there is anything worse about the church 50 years ago...and I do believe there were somethings better...but I don't believe there has EVER been a "Golden age" of church history in which most churches got most things right and were all committed to the same godly goals...Sinful humans have always left their mark on the church.

 

[Benjamin]

Would anyone be opposed to reading a Creed congregationally in a worship service...

Have fun.

If they're biased in their approach to interpreting scripture according to manmade doctrines like the church below is:

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.

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.)​

Because most rational intelligent people can recognize a, “preemptive clause to give plausible deniability when the issue is brought up” ~ Dr. JamesAch, when they see it. ​

Have fun.

:smilewinkgrin:​

 

[Winman]

I do not think there is too much value in just reading a creed out loud.Some like the Roman church do, but it becomes a vain repetition.
At a baptism service sometimes a church covenant or creed is read to remind the members of what they are expected to do as a local body of believers.

These tools have value if used to get a better understanding of the word of God by working through them.

Translation- The scriptures are not our authority, our creed is our authority, we interpret the scriptures to agree with our creed.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Translation- The scriptures are not our authority, our creed is our authority, we interpret the scriptures to agree with our creed.

Calvinist Objectioner ("CO"): "They are merely a guide, the Bible is the final authority"
Non Calvinist ("NC"): "Is Calvinism the Gospel?

CO: "Yes, it is, and it is based on the Bible".

NC: "Can I truly understand the gospel by just the Bible alone?"

CO: "Yes, but if you are truly led of God, you will come to the Calvinist conclusion"

NC: "But don't Calvinists believe that God predetermines people to hell?"

CO: "You don't understand Calvinism"

NC: "How then can I truly understand Calvinism then"

CO: "Well, you should study the Creeds and Confessions"

NC: "But you just said that I could understand the gospel through the Bible alone. The only way to truly understand the Bible is if I'm truly saved (1 Cor 2:14), and yet to be truly saved means understanding the gospel, and if the gospel is Calvinism, and the only way to truly understand Calvinism is by learning it from the Confessions, then ultimately, the Confessions must come first before I can properly understand the gospel?"

CO: " Well...uhh....um..ohh...uhhh [scratches head:BangHead:]..you're an idiot, you clearly have no understanding of anything let alone Calvinism. You are misrepresenting my words. Calvinism is based on the Bible"

NC: "So I guess we're back at square one!"

 

[Winman]

Calvinist Objectioner ("CO"): "They are merely a guide, the Bible is the final authority"
Non Calvinist ("NC"): "Is Calvinism the Gospel?

CO: "Yes, it is, and it is based on the Bible".

NC: "Can I truly understand the gospel by just the Bible alone?"

CO: "Yes, but if you are truly led of God, you will come to the Calvinist conclusion"

NC: "But don't Calvinists believe that God predetermines people to hell?"

CO: "You don't understand Calvinism"

NC: "How then can I truly understand Calvinism then"

CO: "Well, you should study the Creeds and Confessions"

NC: "But you just said that I could understand the gospel through the Bible alone. The only way to truly understand the Bible is if I'm truly saved (1 Cor 2:14), and yet to be truly saved means understanding the gospel, and if the gospel is Calvinism, and the only way to truly understand Calvinism is by learning it from the Confessions, then ultimately, the Confessions must come first before I can properly understand the gospel?"

CO: " Well...uhh....um..ohh...uhhh [scratches head:BangHead:]..you're an idiot, you clearly have no understanding of anything let alone Calvinism. You are misrepresenting my words. Calvinism is based on the Bible"

NC: "So I guess we're back at square one!"

What Icon actually said is that creeds are a tool that can be used to better understand the Word of God.

He's saying you need the creeds to properly understand the Word of God, therefore the creeds are his authority.

Same thing the Catholics have been saying for centuries.

Right from the horse's mouth.

 

[Robert Snow]

Our church reads our creed every service, it starts at the beginning of Genesis and stops at the end of Revelation.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Our church reads our creed every service, it starts at the beginning of Genesis and stops at the end of Revelation.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:
AMEN!

 

[DrJamesAch]

What Icon actually said is that creeds are a tool that can be used to better understand the Word of God.

He's saying you need the creeds to properly understand the Word of God, therefore the creeds are his authority.

Same thing the Catholics have been saying for centuries.

Right from the horse's mouth.

Oh I get what he's saying alright. But as in my little anecdotal there, what they MEAN is that you can't ever properly understand Calvinism unless you understand the Creeds, and since Calvinism IS the gospel, in order to understand the gospel you have to understand the creeds first, because the creeds explain the gospel, yet you can't understand the gospel in your sinful state because of your inability which means if Calvinism IS the gospel, and Calvinism can only be properly understood through the confessions, a sinner can not get saved through the Bible alone which ultimately makes the Confessions the beginning authority, when the Scriptures should be the beginning and final authority.

 

[Iconoclast]

What Icon actually said is that creeds are a tool that can be used to better understand the Word of God.

He's saying you need the creeds to properly understand the Word of God, therefore the creeds are his authority.

Same thing the Catholics have been saying for centuries.

Right from the horse's mouth.

I never said such a thing Winman.I understand the difference between a creed,a confession, and a catechism.....you do not some to know the difference.

Ach evidently does not get it either.If you want to remain ignorant of the truth contained in these tools you can continue to do so. We can see it by what you post.:wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

Ach

Oh I get what he's saying alright.

Surely you do not..

But as in my little anecdotal there, what they MEAN is

We will say what we mean....you can say what you mean.What you claim we say....is said by no one at all.....so it is a product of your own mind. A falsehood at that.

 

[saturneptune]

I never said such a thing Winman.I understand the difference between a creed,a confession, and a catechism.....you do not some to know the difference.

Ach evidently does not get it either.If you want to remain ignorant of the truth contained in these tools you can continue to do so. We can see it by what you post.:wavey:

This makes your point evident, just simple definitions.


Catechisms

A Catechism is a manual of Christian doctrine drawn up in the form of questions and answers, especially one for religious instruction. The first such manual was compiled by the English scholar Alcuin in the 8th century. Emphasis on the use of a catechism, particularly its memorization by rote, has diminished in recent years.


Confessions

A confession is a manual of Christian doctrine drawn up in the form of essays. Confessions are typically written in a chapter format and grouped according to a particular subject. there are a great number of proof texts which provide the Scriptural basis for each subject.


Creeds

Creeds are authoritative summaries of the principal articles of faith of various churches or bodies of believers. Since doctrines are subject to elaboration and interpretation that cause differences of opinion detailed creeds become necessary to emphasize the differences between the tenets of schismatic branches. They also serve as formulations of belief when liturgical usage, as in the administration of baptism, requires a profession of faith.


It is obvious that certain posters are here not to inform, clarify, or edify, but to demean and cause division. Of all people Icon uses and studies the Bible incessantly as his final Authority. Both Presbyterians and Baptists use the Bible as their final Authority. In the Presbyterian Church, we used the Apostle's Creed from time to time. It was not a replacement for the Bible, but a summary of beliefs. Creeds are not so apparent in the Baptist faith, so really, I this thread is not needed. If Baptist churches repeat a creed, it was usually formed by the local church.

The very fact that Icon was ridiculed for his statement on creeds is clear and convincing evidence that some are obsessed with only one doctrine and a small collections of people.

 

[Iconoclast]

This makes your point evident, just simple definitions.


Catechisms

A Catechism is a manual of Christian doctrine drawn up in the form of questions and answers, especially one for religious instruction. The first such manual was compiled by the English scholar Alcuin in the 8th century. Emphasis on the use of a catechism, particularly its memorization by rote, has diminished in recent years.


Confessions

A confession is a manual of Christian doctrine drawn up in the form of essays. Confessions are typically written in a chapter format and grouped according to a particular subject. there are a great number of proof texts which provide the Scriptural basis for each subject.


Creeds

Creeds are authoritative summaries of the principal articles of faith of various churches or bodies of believers. Since doctrines are subject to elaboration and interpretation that cause differences of opinion detailed creeds become necessary to emphasize the differences between the tenets of schismatic branches. They also serve as formulations of belief when liturgical usage, as in the administration of baptism, requires a profession of faith.


It is obvious that certain posters are here not to inform, clarify, or edify, but to demean and cause division. Of all people Icon uses and studies the Bible incessantly as his final Authority. Both Presbyterians and Baptists use the Bible as their final Authority. In the Presbyterian Church, we used the Apostle's Creed from time to time. It was not a replacement for the Bible, but a summary of beliefs. Creeds are not so apparent in the Baptist faith, so really, I this thread is not needed. If Baptist churches repeat a creed, it was usually formed by the local church.

The very fact that Icon was ridiculed for his statement on creeds is clear and convincing evidence that some are obsessed with only one doctrine and a small collections of people.

Thank you for this helpful post brother! While any tool can be handled incorrectly...they should not be despised. if you notice that those who speak against the catechisms,etc...cannot explain their point in a coherent fashion 9 times out of 10.....

I have challenged any of them to rewrite any of the confessions and improve on them...but there has been no takers:thumbs::thumbsup:

 

[saturneptune]

Thank you for this helpful post brother! While any tool can be handled incorrectly...they should not be despised. if you notice that those who speak against the catechisms,etc...cannot explain their point in a coherent fashion 9 times out of 10.....

I have challenged any of them to rewrite any of the confessions and improve on them...but there has been no takers:thumbs::thumbsup:

There is no doubt in my mind if you found a gap between any creed or confession and Scripture, you would be shouting it from the roof tops. The Dr follows you like a puppy.

 

[Benjamin]

Of all people Icon uses and studies the Bible incessantly as his final Authority.

Saying so doesn't make it true. There is plenty of "reason" to believe otherwise... it is very evident from his own words. You haven't addressed the arguments that point at these words to show the contrary. You've apparently missed the argument about the obvious preemptive statements for plausible deniability. I'll bet such can be demonstrated back to the base of his learning, such as from his church doctrine. You have simply repeated his false claim and are playing the martyr for him.

 

[saturneptune]

Saying so doesn't make it true. There is plenty of "reason" to believe otherwise... it is very evident from his own words. You haven't addressed the arguments that point at these words to show the contrary. You've apparently missed the argument about the obvious preemptive statements for plausible deniability. I'll bet such can be demonstrated back to the base of his learning, such as from his church doctrine. You have simply repeated his false claim and are playing the martyr for him.

I can speak for my experience with creeds, and those who have read creeds before have the Bible as their final Authority as much as those who do not. Why are you harping on me, I have not been a Presbyterian for 35 years, and my church does not read creeds.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Iconoclast

Calvinist Objectioner ("CO"): "They are merely a guide, the Bible is the final authority"
Non Calvinist ("NC"): "Is Calvinism the Gospel?

CO: "Yes, it is, and it is based on the Bible".

NC: "Can I truly understand the gospel by just the Bible alone?"

CO: "Yes, but if you are truly led of God, you will come to the Calvinist conclusion"

NC: "But don't Calvinists believe that God predetermines people to hell?"

CO: "You don't understand Calvinism"

NC: "How then can I truly understand Calvinism then"

CO: "Well, you should study the Creeds and Confessions"

NC: "But you just said that I could understand the gospel through the Bible alone. The only way to truly understand the Bible is if I'm truly saved (1 Cor 2:14), and yet to be truly saved means understanding the gospel, and if the gospel is Calvinism, and the only way to truly understand Calvinism is by learning it from the Confessions, then ultimately, the Confessions must come first before I can properly understand the gospel?"

CO: " Well...uhh....um..ohh...uhhh [scratches head:BangHead:]..you're an idiot, you clearly have no understanding of anything let alone Calvinism. You are misrepresenting my words. Calvinism is based on the Bible"

NC: "So I guess we're back at square one!"

Actually, yes I do get what you are saying, I just posted it! I even posted your response which I could easily just replace "CO" with "Iconoclast"

 

[DrJamesAch]

Thank you for this helpful post brother! While any tool can be handled incorrectly...they should not be despised. if you notice that those who speak against the catechisms,etc...cannot explain their point in a coherent fashion 9 times out of 10.....

I have challenged any of them to rewrite any of the confessions and improve on them...but there has been no takers:thumbs::thumbsup:

Pfftt. are you serious?? I can't count how many times I've laid out all the contradictions in the Confessions, and had a few threads dedicated to JUST THAT SUBJECT, which of course, never gets to stay for very long because certain people with a vendetta against me personally make sure they always cause the thread to get shut down.

And why on earth would anyone of us Non Calvinist want to rewrite a Calvinist Creed? Of course nobody would take you up on that it's absurd. If the Creed is that important to you, YOU rewrite it, and get rid of all the contradictions!

 

[saturneptune]

I do not know what the above post says, but if everyone would put something on ignore, it would go away. It is like the solution to the Rush Limbaugh problem, the off switch.

 

[Iconoclast]

!

Saying so doesn't make it true. There is plenty of "reason" to believe otherwise... it is very evident from his own words. You haven't addressed the arguments that point at these words to show the contrary. You've apparently missed the argument about the obvious preemptive statements for plausible deniability. I'll bet such can be demonstrated back to the base of his learning, such as from his church doctrine. You have simply repeated his false claim and are playing the martyr for him.

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:thumbsup::thumbsup: you pick the topic, we will take a look together.

 

[saturneptune]

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:thumbsup::thumbsup: you pick the topic, we will take a look together.

If you ever come through West KY on a stop and you, I and Tom meet for coffee, I think I will skip that one. LOL