Read a Creed in Church?

[Benjamin]

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.

Because you are trying to turn this into a personal slugfest instead on addressing the issues that are seen in the arguments. People do follow creeds to get their interpretations of the scriptures and thereby should recognize what they are doing. Icon makes a great example of how people deny this, his tough luck, but the argument is still about the issues not whether Icon is being picked on or not. Not whether "your" church uses creeds.

I suggested you address the arguments that demonstrates the bottom line of where the "final authority" often rests. You now seem to want to ask why I am picking on you rather than address these issues. Again, you seemed to have missed the point. Sorry, but "your" claimed personal experience doesn't carry a lot of weight against the evidence being presented. IOW's - This is an argument against the evidences not again "your" claim of personal experience so you can get offended about it or continue turning it into a personal slugfest. PERSONALLY, I'm tired of hearing it.

 

[saturneptune]

Because you are trying to turn this into a personal slugfest instead on addressing the issues that are seen in the arguments. People do follow creeds to get their interpretations of the scriptures and thereby should recognize what they are doing. Icon makes a great example of how people deny this, his tough luck, but the argument is still about the issues not whether Icon is being picked on or not. Not whether "your" church uses creeds.

I suggested you address the arguments that demonstrates the bottom line of where the "final authority" often rests. You now seem to want to ask why I am picking on you rather than address these issues. Again, you seemed to have missed the point. Sorry, but "your" claimed personal experience doesn't carry a lot of weight against the evidence being presented. IOW's - This is an argument against the evidences not again "your" claim of personal experience so you can get offended about it or continue turning it into a personal slugfest. PERSONALLY, I'm tired of hearing it.

There are several solutions to your dilemma.

1. Put all posters that you disagree with theologically on ignore.
2. Do not respond to their posts.
3. Do not read their posts.

The point is, my church does not read creeds or confessions. Icon did not say his church does either. All he said is there are elements of truth in some creeds and confessions. If you read the Apostle's Creed, I doubt you will find it at variance with Scripture. If you can, then the Bible is the authority. Scholars a lot smarter than anyone on this board wrote some of these creeds.

What I cannot understand is with all we have agreed on, why are you going after me? If for some mysterious reason you are tired of my posts, I refer you to the start of this one.

 

[Benjamin]

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.

In the interest of saving time I still have this prepared statement for you:

"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:

"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."

 

[Benjamin]

The point is, my church does not read creeds or confessions.

Again, its not about you or your church. Why try to make it so?

Icon did not say his church does either.

Again, so says you, his words demonstrate otherwise. You have NOT engaged those arguments, this is a debate board. BTW, I have used Icon's churches' doctrinal statement in this thread and exposed it as already mentioned.

All he said is there are elements of truth in some creeds and confessions.

No, actually he said a lot more than that as has been pointed out from the reasoning given in his own words. THAT is what I up for debate!

If you read the Apostle's Creed, I doubt you will find it at variance with Scripture. If you can, then the Bible is the authority. Scholars a lot smarter than anyone on this board wrote some of these creeds.

Appealing to the authority of the creeds are we???

What I cannot understand is with all we have agreed on, why are you going after me?

Again, you are trying to turn this into a personal slugfest, I have asked you at least twice to address the issues in the arguments. Why are you making this personal?

If for some mysterious reason you are tired of my posts, I refer you to the start of this one.

Really not tired of "you" personally, just tired of the type of so called "debate" which centers on trying to make things personal slugfest instead of sticking to and addressing the issues.

 

[Benjamin]

SN,

PLEASE NOTE my debate: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2005129&postcount=22 it includes and focuses on the Op topic, it addresses the issues in the argument and demonstrates a typical example of statements made from a church (Icon's) that is very closely tied to creedal confessions tof which hat statement doesn't agree with itself... and I give the reasons why they don't and also why as per the Op I think it would be MORE ethical to bring attention to creeds in a church if the church is so wrapped up in them.

What have you addressed here? Me, poor Icon, you, Dr, Ach...

 

[Winman]

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:

You can deny all you want, I read your own words from you own mouth. You said a confession or creed can be of value if used to get a BETTER UNDERSTANDING of the word of God.

In other words, you interpret scripture through the filter of your confessions and creeds. The scriptures must be understood to agree with your confessions and creeds, therefore they become your authority and not the scriptures alone.

Where you go wrong is highlighted above. You assume your confessions and creeds are truth. The word of God is truth, and your confessions and creeds should agree with scriptures, not the other way around as you do.

 

[12strings]

You said a confession or creed can be of value if used to get a BETTER UNDERSTANDING of the word of God.

In other words, you interpret scripture through the filter of your confessions and creeds. The scriptures must be understood to agree with your confessions and creeds, therefore they become your authority and not the scriptures alone.

These two statements are not equal. One does not necessitate the other.

Here's why: You have yourself posted many posts on this forum...some of which take a scripture, or multiple scriptures, and explain an interpretation of them, using your own words to hopefully, help the read GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING of the word of God. Is that not your goal.

Now suppose I agree with what your post says, and I DO get a bet990ter understanding of the word of God...Have I then by definition abandoned the authority of scriptures and instead interpreted scripture through the filter of your explaination, replacing scripture with the words of men?

I would say: Not at all...I have simply allowed God to use the wisdom of other people to assist my own bible study...which, if there is no place for that, then there is no place for bible teaching, preaching, or debating of any kind.

(That said, I would agree that I think Icon is on the dangerous edge of doing exactly what you say he is doing...based on his long patterns of appealing to confessions...but not based on this one statement.)

 

[DrJamesAch]

These two statements are not equal. One does not necessitate the other.

Here's why: You have yourself posted many posts on this forum...some of which take a scripture, or multiple scriptures, and explain an interpretation of them, using your own words to hopefully, help the read GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING of the word of God. Is that not your goal.

Now suppose I agree with what your post says, and I DO get a bet990ter understanding of the word of God...Have I then by definition abandoned the authority of scriptures and instead interpreted scripture through the filter of your explaination, replacing scripture with the words of men?

I would say: Not at all...I have simply allowed God to use the wisdom of other people to assist my own bible study...which, if there is no place for that, then there is no place for bible teaching, preaching, or debating of any kind.

(That said, I would agree that I think Icon is on the dangerous edge of doing exactly what you say he is doing...based on his long patterns of appealing to confessions...but not based on this one statement.)

I think the last statement you made is what clarifies the entire response because Winman is in fact, basing his response on that same experience having interacted with him and facing these issues in post after post. So he is actually not basing this on just "this one statement" but a consistent pattern of statements.

It is one thing to give ear to a man's words as an aid to clarify the Bible, another to turn those mans words into a doctrinal statement and demand that others must understand them to properly understand the gospel. Non Calvinists are repeatedly accused of not understanding Calvinism, and Calvinists maintain that Calvinism IS the gospel, but to understand Calvinism, they rely on the Creeds which therefore means that no person can properly understand the gospel unless they understand Calvinism, and no one can understand Calvinism without the Creeds.

 

[12strings]

I think the last statement you made is what clarifies the entire response because Winman is in fact, basing his response on that same experience having interacted with him and facing these issues in post after post. So he is actually not basing this on just "this one statement" but a consistent pattern of statements.

It is one thing to give ear to a man's words as an aid to clarify the Bible, another to turn those mans words into a doctrinal statement and demand that others must understand them to properly understand the gospel. Non Calvinists are repeatedly accused of not understanding Calvinism, and Calvinists maintain that Calvinism IS the gospel, but to understand Calvinism, they rely on the Creeds which therefore means that no person can properly understand the gospel unless they understand Calvinism, and no one can understand Calvinism without the Creeds.

1. That was a silly statement by Spurgeon. Calvinists need to stop parroting it like's it's an infallible statement.

2. I would say in my circles there is almost zero appeal to creeds when explaining calvinism/Election. Much more appeal to scriptures.

 

[Winman]

These two statements are not equal. One does not necessitate the other.

Here's why: You have yourself posted many posts on this forum...some of which take a scripture, or multiple scriptures, and explain an interpretation of them, using your own words to hopefully, help the read GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING of the word of God. Is that not your goal.

Now suppose I agree with what your post says, and I DO get a bet990ter understanding of the word of God...Have I then by definition abandoned the authority of scriptures and instead interpreted scripture through the filter of your explaination, replacing scripture with the words of men?

I would say: Not at all...I have simply allowed God to use the wisdom of other people to assist my own bible study...which, if there is no place for that, then there is no place for bible teaching, preaching, or debating of any kind.

(That said, I would agree that I think Icon is on the dangerous edge of doing exactly what you say he is doing...based on his long patterns of appealing to confessions...but not based on this one statement.)

I understand your point exactly, and mostly agree with you.

The difference is Icon starts with the assumption that Reformed creeds are truth and infallible. Look at his last statement;

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.

What is Icon speaking of when he says "these tools"? He is speaking of the creeds and confessions which he described as tools that can be used to better understand the scriptures.

In other words, if Icon is confronted with a passage of scripture that a non-Cal interprets to refute a doctrine of Calvinism, where does Icon resort to? Why, he goes to his Reformed creeds and confessions and interprets this passage filtered through these "tools".

Anyone who disagrees with these creeds and confessions of his is said to disagree with "the truth" according to Icon, though they may perfectly agree with scripture.

It is clear that his creeds and confessions are his authority, not the scripture alone.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I understand your point exactly, and mostly agree with you.

The difference is Icon starts with the assumption that Reformed creeds are truth and infallible. Look at his last statement;



What is Icon speaking of when he says "these tools"? He is speaking of the creeds and confessions which he described as tools that can be used to better understand the scriptures.

In other words, if Icon is confronted with a passage of scripture that a non-Cal interprets to refute a doctrine of Calvinism, where does Icon resort to? Why, he goes to his Reformed creeds and confessions and interprets this passage filtered through these "tools".

Anyone who disagrees with these creeds and confessions of his is said to disagree with "the truth" according to Icon, though they may perfectly agree with scripture.

It is clear that his creeds and confessions are his authority, not the scripture alone.

Correct...he believes his c & c to be ripped from scripture.

 

[saturneptune]

SN,

PLEASE NOTE my debate: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2005129&postcount=22 it includes and focuses on the Op topic, it addresses the issues in the argument and demonstrates a typical example of statements made from a church (Icon's) that is very closely tied to creedal confessions tof which hat statement doesn't agree with itself... and I give the reasons why they don't and also why as per the Op I think it would be MORE ethical to bring attention to creeds in a church if the church is so wrapped up in them.

What have you addressed here? Me, poor Icon, you, Dr, Ach...

Look Benjamin,
I have long respected your detailed knowledge of Scripture and history even when we disagree. I have never thought of you as disingenuous. We agree on much outside of the subject of Calvinism, which, as you know, I do not even like the term.

Maybe my conclusions are influenced by my time in the Presbyterian Church. I cannot find anything in the Apostles Creed I disagree with.

The last thing I want is another person that has changed from a friend to a bitter rival. I do not want that in your case, as there are enough of them around, one in particular. The only ones I get angry at for any length of time are those that I perceive as dishonest. You are honest and above board in your posts, agree or disagree, and hope you will consider this.

 

[Benjamin]

Look Benjamin,
I have long respected your detailed knowledge of Scripture and history even when we disagree. I have never thought of you as disingenuous. We agree on much outside of the subject of Calvinism, which, as you know, I do not even like the term.

Maybe my conclusions are influenced by my time in the Presbyterian Church. I cannot find anything in the Apostles Creed I disagree with.

The last thing I want is another person that has changed from a friend to a bitter rival. I do not want that in your case, as there are enough of them around, one in particular. The only ones I get angry at for any length of time are those that I perceive as dishonest. You are honest and above board in your posts, agree or disagree, and hope you will consider this.

Thanks. But, I see that you are not going to let up on taking offense and making this personal despite my counsel; but I hope you will continue to consider the purpose of my trying to redirect your focus on the issues rather than the person.

 

[Winman]

Correct...he believes his c & c to be ripped from scripture.

He might believe his creeds and confessions are ripped from scripture, but he interprets scripture through the filter of his creeds and confessions, which is the exact opposite of what we should do. We should make sure our creeds and confessions agree with a true interpretation of scripture.

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

 

[saturneptune]

Thanks. But, I see that you are not going to let up on taking offense and making this personal despite my counsel; but I hope you will continue to consider the purpose of my trying to redirect your focus on the issues rather than the person.

Thinking about what you said, you are probably right, although I do think the issue of creeds, as long as they are in alignment with Scripture, do no harm.

The core of my problem is not letting something go. At some point after this poster joined, he was mocking another poster about living in Kentucky.(same state I live in). One thing lead to another, then it was the occupation, then military service. I made an inappropriate comment about the Jewish faith in a PM, and got an infraction. There was no excuse for it, but it was a month ago. He has told everyone about it, and the conversation is still going on.

I have been grilled by several posters over the last few weeks, which I suppose I deserve. That is the background to this story. Not one of my better moments. As you suggest, I am going to stop responding to the posts, which I should have done in the first place.

To get back to the issue, I really do not see how creeds and confessions are related to the free will-sovereignty debate.

 

[Dr. Bob]

We are a "confessional" church (1644 and 1689 London Baptist Confessions - oldest in the English world) and we have read or publish in bulletin articles of it regularly.

We also try to read 4 "creeds" at least 2-3 times a year in place of our introductory Scripture - since creeds often summarize succinctly doctrine and verses of the Word.

Apostles Creed
Nicene Creed
A Contemporary Creed/Affirmation of Faith
Te Deum from St Ambrose (modern English)

 

[saturneptune]

We are a "confessional" church (1644 and 1689 London Baptist Confessions - oldest in the English world) and we have read or publish in bulletin articles of it regularly.

We also try to read 4 "creeds" at least 2-3 times a year in place of our introductory Scripture - since creeds often summarize succinctly doctrine and verses of the Word.

Apostles Creed
Nicene Creed
A Contemporary Creed/Affirmation of Faith
Te Deum from St Ambrose (modern English)

Are your creeds and Scripture readings attached to your hymnal?

 

[Robert Snow]

We also try to read 4 "creeds" at least 2-3 times a year in place of our introductory Scripture - since creeds often summarize succinctly doctrine and verses of the Word.

Apostles Creed
Nicene Creed
A Contemporary Creed/Affirmation of Faith
Te Deum from St Ambrose (modern English)

Keep you creeds, I will stick with the Word of God taken in context.

 

[Tom Butler]

Let's say saturneptune and I are having one of our regular conversations. He asks me, what do you believe the Bible teaches about how one comes into a right relationship with God?

I reply, one must recognize that he is a sinner, under condemnation. He must be sorry for his sins, and trust Christ and Him alone for salvation. I believe that He is able to keep me saved, and that no one can snatch me out of His hand.

Then SN asks me, do you believe that Jesus is God in the flesh? I answer, Yes.

I have just expressed my creed. What's wrong with that? Isn't a creed simply an expression of what one believes the Bible teaches?

 

[Iconoclast]

He might believe his creeds and confessions are ripped from scripture, but he interprets scripture through the filter of his creeds and confessions, which is the exact opposite of what we should do. We should make sure our creeds and confessions agree with a true interpretation of scripture.

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

Winman,

Your "creed" is yourself.You accept nothing but what meaning you ascribe to the verses. Your own ideas are your only creed,even laced with error.
The Catechisms and confessions are used to safeguard against errors such as you offer.They also provide summary statements of the truths of scripture.
You wrongly claim several things about the proper uses of these tools, when everyone I post make clear that the scripture alone is the only rule of faith and practice.
The fact is you, nor Robert Snow, nor Benjamin articulate scripture truth as well as any of these documents.Snow makes the claim he uses scripture alone in context and yet I cannot recall him posting any??? Much less discussing any biblical teaching.