The Authority of Scripture: Creedal vs. Sole Authority

[Yeshua1]

a little more than that

How so?

 

[JonC]

I think he's asking: How can we claim scripture as the sole authority of our faith if we continue to cling to creeds to defend our beliefs?

That is what I'm asking.

Looking around the board I often see confessions used where I would have expected to see Scripture. With the other thread the member I was arguing against never budged from the creed (he said Scripture affirmed the creed but he also said that he was "unwilling" to go to Scripture). I was amazed (not in a good way) because we were both Baptist.

I've never encountered that before.

 

[JonC]

How so?

Creeds are more than Scripture strung together to form doctrine because in forming doctrine the creeds give us the interpretation of those to whom the creeds belong.

 

[Yeshua1]

Creeds are more than Scripture strung together to form doctrine because in forming doctrine the creeds give us the interpretation of those to whom the creeds belong.

I was speaking more about the Confessions of faith....

 

[rlvaughn]

...he said Scripture affirmed the creed but he also said that he was "unwilling" to go to Scripture). I was amazed (not in a good way) because we were both Baptist.

I too finding that amazing not in a good way.

 

[37818]

The Confessions just give a summary of various scriptures used to support each major doctrine of the faith, correct?

If they did. The problems are when they do not. Creed over Scripture . . .

 

[Jerome]

If you really, really want to 'hold to' some Confession, you can just do a theological 'Curly Shuffle'.

Here's a 2011 video where RC Sproul's son affirms that they indeed hold to the Apostles Creed, but wonders how they can...

SPROUL JR: "That was an outstanding exegesis of the text in Peter, but we're still left with the problem of The Apostles Creed. We do, some of us anyway, affirm 'Jesus descended into Hell.' What does that mean?"

His dad than explains to him how they can interpret "descended into Hell" as Jesus experiencing hell-on-earth while He was crucified, and that they can just affirm each phrase individually rather than in the order stated in The Creed:

SPROUL SR: "Instead of...'Jesus was crucified, dead, and buried, descended into Hell'....Jesus is crucified, descended into Hell, dead, and was buried. The descent into Hell took place not after He died, but on the Cross!"

Nifty, huh?

the exchange is at 20:30

 

[JonC]

If you really, really want to 'hold to' some Confession, you can just do a theological 'Curly Shuffle'.

Here's a 2011 video where RC Sproul's son affirms that they indeed hold to the Apostles Creed, but wonders how they can...

SPROUL JR: "That was an outstanding exegesis of the text in Peter, but we're still left with the problem of The Apostles Creed. We do, some of us anyway, affirm 'Jesus descended into Hell.' What does that mean?"

His dad than explains to him how they can interpret "descended into Hell" as Jesus experiencing hell-on-earth while He was crucified, and that they can just affirm each phrase individually rather than in the order stated in The Creed:

SPROUL SR: "Instead of...'Jesus was crucified, dead, and buried, descended into Hell'....Jesus is crucified, descended into Hell, dead, and was buried. The descent into Hell took place not after He died, but on the Cross!"

Nifty, huh?

the exchange is at 20:30

That's one potential problem with creeds (and, really with theologies as well). No one wants to go against their tradition so they have to get creative. Soon theory is built on theory so the end is nothing like the beginning.

Yeats was on to something - the falcon cannot hear the falconer.

 

[rsr]

SPROUL SR: "Instead of...'Jesus was crucified, dead, and buried, descended into Hell'....Jesus is crucified, descended into Hell, dead, and was buried. The descent into Hell took place not after He died, but on the Cross!"

Nifty, huh?

That's essentially Calvin's interpretation, but you don't have to go to such lengths to affirm "descended into hell."

The Latin is ad inferus, the lower parts of the earth, the place of the dead. It's equivalent to Sheol or Hades. The purpose of the phrase in the creed is to emphasize that Christ did truly die (insofar as his human aspect was concerned) and was in the grave, the abode of the dead, until he was raised. The emphasis was not on the specific location of Christ but on the fact that his body was truly dead. He wasn't in a coma; he didn't succumb to a swoon. He was as dead as a doornail in human terms, experiencing what mortals experience in death. And then he conquered death and dragged all of creation out of the grave with Him, and we await the day when all that he accomplished will be made manifest.

So, no, I don't have a problem with the Apostles Creed (even though it wasn't formulated by the apostles.)

 

[JonC]

That's essentially Calvin's interpretation, but you don't have to go to such lengths to affirm "descended into hell."

The Latin is ad inferus, the lower parts of the earth, the place of the dead. It's equivalent to Sheol or Hades. The purpose of the phrase in the creed is to emphasize that Christ did truly die (insofar as his human aspect was concerned) and was in the grave, the abode of the dead, until he was raised. The emphasis was not on the specific location of Christ but on the fact that his body was truly dead. He wasn't in a coma; he didn't succumb to a swoon. He was as dead as a doornail in human terms, experiencing what mortals experience in death. And then he conquered death and dragged all of creation out of the grave with Him, and we await the day when all that he accomplished will be made manifest.

So, no, I don't have a problem with the Apostles Creed (even though it wasn't formulated by the apostles.)

Calvin defended in length why Christ had to suffer in Hell (as would have been our penalty) rather than Hell meaning the grave. I suspect the idea of suffering "Hell" on the cross is a reworking of his view (theory upon theory).

 

[The Archangel]

That is what I'm asking.

Looking around the board I often see confessions used where I would have expected to see Scripture. With the other thread the member I was arguing against never budged from the creed (he said Scripture affirmed the creed but he also said that he was "unwilling" to go to Scripture). I was amazed (not in a good way) because we were both Baptist.

I've never encountered that before.

This statement, again, is incorrect and inaccurate. It is not the creed I refused to budge from but a rhetorical method. You were committing a logical fallacy and I simply refused to join you in it and give credence to your rhetorical error.

You seem to not understand that the Chalcedon formula (one person; two natures)--whether one agrees with it or not--has been the definition of orthodox Christianity for 1500 years. You disagree with that definition, but you never stated why nor cited Scripture in your disagreement. Since Chalcedon is the orthodox position, you--as the challenger of the position--must first attempt to disprove it. The onus is on you. It is not the role of the supporter of the creed to defend the creed when it has been and still is the standard of orthodoxy.

My opposition to you on this matter is on purely procedural grounds--nothing more; nothing less. You should be able to articulate my reasons rightly, regardless of whether you agree with them.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

If you really, really want to 'hold to' some Confession, you can just do a theological 'Curly Shuffle'.

Here's a 2011 video where RC Sproul's son affirms that they indeed hold to the Apostles Creed, but wonders how they can...

SPROUL JR: "That was an outstanding exegesis of the text in Peter, but we're still left with the problem of The Apostles Creed. We do, some of us anyway, affirm 'Jesus descended into Hell.' What does that mean?"

His dad than explains to him how they can interpret "descended into Hell" as Jesus experiencing hell-on-earth while He was crucified, and that they can just affirm each phrase individually rather than in the order stated in The Creed:

SPROUL SR: "Instead of...'Jesus was crucified, dead, and buried, descended into Hell'....Jesus is crucified, descended into Hell, dead, and was buried. The descent into Hell took place not after He died, but on the Cross!"

Nifty, huh?

the exchange is at 20:30

It should be noted that the phrase "he descended into Hell" is not part of the original creed; it is a later addition.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

This statement, again, is incorrect and inaccurate. It is not the creed I refused to budge from but a rhetorical method. You were committing a logical fallacy and I simply refused to join you in it and give credence to your rhetorical error.

You seem to not understand that the Chalcedon formula (one person; two natures)--whether one agrees with it or not--has been the definition of orthodox Christianity for 1500 years. You disagree with that definition, but you never stated why nor cited Scripture in your disagreement. Since Chalcedon is the orthodox position, you--as the challenger of the position--must first attempt to disprove it. The onus is on you. It is not the role of the supporter of the creed to defend the creed when it has been and still is the standard of orthodoxy.

My opposition to you on this matter is on purely procedural grounds--nothing more; nothing less. You should be able to articulate my reasons rightly, regardless of whether you agree with them.

The Archangel

Yes. This is what I mean.

When we try to defend a position that is creedal we need to prove that position via Scripture. Not everyone, as you well know, holds to any specific creed. Some even oppose pre-5th century creeds. And then people hold such things differently.

The burden is never on the other to disprove a creed, statement of faith, or confession. The burden is always for the adherent to prove the creed precisely because our authority is Scripture.

This is the reason I ended up changing my major. There were so many that adhered to creedal statements they could not defend. When challenged they always insisted they were correct and the burden belonged to the "biblicist". In the end they simply held a creed they could not adequately defend.

There the issue was "once saved always saved". I believe the doctrine of eternal security true, but there was a time I couldn't adequately defined it.

This is a danger of even simple creeds (or "slogans". It facilitates biblical illiteracy. The only thing more sad than a Chtistian who is unable to turn to Scripture is a Christian who is unwilling.

 

[The Archangel]

Yes. This is what I mean.

When we try to defend a position that is creedal we need to prove that position via Scripture. Not everyone, as you well know, holds to any specific creed. Some even oppose pre-5th century creeds..

The burden is never on the other to disprove a creed, statement of faith, or confession. The burden is always for the adherent to prove the creed precisely because our authority is Scripture.

This is untrue in rhetorical practice, which is what a debate forum is about. The creed states the orthodox position. You disagree. You must state why, which you've never done using scripture.

At this point, since you so intensely dislike people misrepresenting your position, you ought to be able to understand and rightly articulate mine, even if you disagree.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

This is untrue in rhetorical practice, which is what a debate forum is about. The creed states the orthodox position. You disagree. You must state why, which you've never done using scripture.

At this point, since you so intensely dislike people misrepresenting your position, you ought to be able to understand and rightly articulate mine, even if you disagree.

The Archangel

Hey bro.,

I understand what you are saying, but I think you may have misunderstood my position. I will not allow this thread to be hijacked, but I will address our difference in the context of the OP.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if I do not believe a teachings presented, but that teaching is in a 5th century creed, then it is up to me to disprove the creed because it is a majority view (you consider your interpretation of the creed to be the "Orthodox" position for the Church).

I am saying that the only ones subject to creeds are those for whom the creed represents their belief. These things are not an authority. Christian's should go to Scripture because that is our standard and common ground.

We simply disagree. I am not a creedal Baptist. I refuse to accept an idea as biblical simply because it is in a creed. Faith is neither blind nor ignorant. We need to search out God's Word and test the creeds we would hold (if any) against Scripture.

I hope this helps you understand my position a bit better. I just have a concern for what I see as declining biblical illiteracy. People hold beliefs they can neither defend (via Scripture) or really understand.

On a more relevant topic, what creeds and confessions do you hold?

Does your church hold a specific creed?

John

 

[The Archangel]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if I do not believe a teachings presented, but that teaching is in a 5th century creed, then it is up to me to disprove the creed because it is a majority view (you consider your interpretation of the creed to be the "Orthodox" position for the Church).

Notice: The phrase "you consider your interpretation of the creed to be the "Orthodox" position for the Church" is not at all accurate. My acceptance or rejection of a creed makes it neither orthodox or unorthodox. The orthodoxy of Chalcedon has long been the established statement on Christology. My "interpretation" (which there is none when citing that it says Christ has two natures) does not establish what is orthodox "for" the church. So, your language here is quite problematic.

That you won't engage in proper rhetorical method is not my concern. The misrepresentation of my position, however, is. I simply won't engage in the discussion until you meet the burden of proof requirement.

Since Chalcedon is the orthodox view, whether you hold to it or not as orthodox, it is still on you as the challenger of the wide-spread orthodox position to say why and how Chalcedon gets Christology wrong. This is simple rhetorical method as it relates to burden of proof. So, I'll state it again: My opposition to you is purely on procedural grounds.

I am saying that the only ones subject to creeds are those for whom the creed represents their belief. These things are not an authority. Christian's should go to Scripture because that is our standard and common ground.

Yes and no. But you're still not demonstrating understanding of the issue here. It is true, we are not subject to creeds. However, creeds do not come about in a vacuum. Creeds are a codification of orthodox beliefs (usually a post-heresy formulation) drawn from scripture. At times, those composing the creeds go wrong. Scripture is the final authority, no doubt. And where creeds are wrong, scripture must supersede the creed. But where the creeds are right, there is no need to re-prove them right.

However, as stated ad nauseam that is not the issue here.

Chalcedon is, in point of fact, the widely-accepted, orthodox statement of Christology that most churches and denominations have held to for a millennium-and-a-half. That you deny Chalcedon's formula of Christology is, I suppose, your choice. But, rhetorically, you--as the one who disputes the Chalcedon formula--are the one who must disprove the majority position.

What you're seeking to do here is to nullify the creed. I'm "requiring" you to do your rhetorical due diligence and disprove it. If you continue to refuse to do so, that's fine--as long as you do not continue to misrepresent my position.

We simply disagree. I am not a creedal Baptist. I refuse to accept an idea as biblical simply because it is in a creed. Faith is neither blind nor ignorant. We need to search out God's Word and test the creeds we would hold (if any) against Scripture.

I am neither blind nor ignorant and I have no faith in creeds. I have done my research on the creeds and where they are scriptural I have no problem. I happen to agree with the Chalcedonian formula of Christology for many reasons--all of them in scripture. But, it is not on me to prove the majority position.

The other thing in this impasse is your modus operandi: It seems your rejection of a creed means in your mind that the creed is nullified for all and, therefore, must be re-proved. This is neither sound rhetorical nor historical method. You do not get to define orthodoxy, and neither do I. That I am aligned with the majority position does not make it orthodox or more orthodox. That you are against the majority position does not make it less orthodox or unorthodox. The challenger of the majority position (you, in this case) bears the burden of proof. That is all I am saying.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

.STILL WORKING.... Hit "Post" too soon.

 

[JonC]

Notice: The phrase "you consider your interpretation of the creed to be the "Orthodox" position for the Church" is not at all accurate. My acceptance or rejection of a creed makes it neither orthodox or unorthodox. The orthodoxy of Chalcedon has long been the established statement on Christology. My "interpretation" (which there is none when citing that it says Christ has two natures) does not establish what is orthodox "for" the church. So, your language here is quite problematic.

That you won't engage in proper rhetorical method is not my concern. The misrepresentation of my position, however, is.

Since Chalcedon is the orthodox view, whether you hold to it or not as orthodox, it is still on you as the challenger of the wide-spread orthodox position to say why and how Chalcedon gets Christology wrong. This is simple rhetorical method as it relates to burden of proof. So, I'll state it again: My opposition to you is purely on procedural grounds.



Yes and no. But you're still not demonstrating understanding of the issue here. We are not subject to creeds. However, creeds do not come about in a vacuum. Creeds are a codification of orthodox beliefs (usually a post-heresy formulation) drawn from scripture. At times, those composing the creeds go wrong. Scripture is the final authority, no doubt. And where creeds are wrong, scripture must supersede the creed.

However, as stated ad nauseam that is not the issue here.

Chalcedon is, in point of fact, the widely-accepted, orthodox statement of Christology that most churches and denominations have held to for a millenium -and-a-half. That you deny Chalcedon's formula of Christology is, I suppose, your choice.

Again, I don't want the thread to be hijacked so let's be careful (not that you arent).

The thread in question was not about creeds or the Chalcedon's formula. We got there as the conversation turned to the nature of the Incarnation. I requested a member prove Jesus had two natures as he had defined the idea via Scripture. You suggested it was my burden to disprove the Chalcedonian Creed.

The issue is one of authority. I may reject a creed (or I may reject an interpretation of a creed). It is never dependent on a Christian to disprove a creed, confession, or theory he or she does not hold.

In debate this is referred to as common presuppositions (presuppositions are preconceived ideas...in a debate this would be "common ground"). Typically in a Baptist debate it is presumed Scripture is the authority.

I can affirm the creed if I don't use anothers definition of "nature". But that doesn't get us anywhere.

We have to go to God's Word and Christian's need to start going back to their bibles instead of reading books about what to believe. As Falwell used to say, we have to know that we know that we know. We can't just regurgitate what we have been fed.

Christian education starts and ends with the Bible.

 

[The Archangel]

Again, I don't want the thread to be hijacked so let's be careful (not that you arent).

The thread in question was not about creeds or the Chalcedon's formula. We got there as the conversation turned to the nature of the Incarceration. I requested a member prove Jesus had two natures as he had defined the idea via Scripture. You suggested it was my burden to disprove the Chalcedonian Creed.

The issue is one of authority. I may reject a creed (or I may reject an interpretation of a creed). It is never dependent on a Christian to disprove a creed, confession, or theory he or she does not hold.

In debate this is referred to as common presuppositions. Typically in a Baptist debate it is presumed Scripture is the authority.

If the Chalcedon was accepted only by the Roman Catholic Church, you would be correct. However, that Chalcedon is accepted by the vast majority of churches and denominations--including the Baptists--puts the onus back on you to show where and how it falls short according to the authority of Scripture.

On a side-note, as far as Chalcedon goes, it is telling that many have debated it (which I've invited you to do) but no wide-spread movement has been undertaken to deny or replace it. This speaks to the wide-spread acceptance.

The Archangel

 

[SovereignGrace]

We got there as the conversation turned to the nature of the Incarceration.

Jesus went to jail?