The Authority of Scripture: Creedal vs. Sole Authority

[JonC]

I thought you were going to stop the childishness.

My point is not to ask someone else to disprove your theory. I actually hoped that was obvious.

He is asking me to provide Scripture saying Jesus did not act in two natures. That is not logical.

If he believes Jesus used one nature to calm the sea and another to grow hungry then the burden is his to prove it by Scripture.

 

[TCassidy]

1925,1963. Etc.

 

[JonC]

One person, who has now residing within Himself both the natures of God and Human, separate and distinct, and yet always one in agreement...

So you don't entirely accept the creed. This orthodox position you speak of, that most (like me) hold specifically states inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably

 

[JonC]

1925,1963. Etc.

1968. God graced you with me in 1968....it just took awhile for us to catch up.

 

[Yeshua1]

No.

It was hell, and not hades jesus went to then?

 

[Yeshua1]

In the KJV that term "hell" is used to translate referring to three different places. In the modern versions typically gehenna.

So was a mistranslation?

 

[InTheLight]

So now you are claiming all Southern Baptists are Calvinists? After all, they all ascribe to the BFM.

OH, YES, that is OBVIOUSLY what I said.

Sheesh.

 

[InTheLight]

Are Creeds and Confessions, when based in Scripture, an authority for orthodoxy?

No, but they are a neat and tidy way of summarizing what one believes.

 

[JonC]

No, but they are a neat and tidy way of summarizing what one believes.

Amen

(that's a neat and tidy way of agreeing with you).

 

[37818]

It was hell, and not hades jesus went to then?

There are two different issues. 1) That the English word "hell" is a perfectly valid translation for the nether world (hades/sheol). 2) And when Jesus spoke of gehenna should not have been translated by the word hell. But that is now the modern practise.

 

[TCassidy]

OH, YES, that is OBVIOUSLY what I said.

Sheesh.

Oh. So all those who accept a creed are not Calvinists? You misspoke?

 

[JonC]

Have you ever noticed that it's the Calvinists that cling to creeds? Use them to defend their theology as if they were inspired? There's even a Calvinist on this board named 1689Dave !

So now you are claiming all Southern Baptists are Calvinists? After all, they all ascribe to the BFM.

OH, YES, that is OBVIOUSLY what I said.

Sheesh.

Oh. So all those who accept a creed are not Calvinists? You misspoke?

Wait!!!

I'm Southern Baptist. @TCassidy , are you saying that I "cling" to creeds?

(this is a fun game, thanks for letting me play )

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Where we disagree (the only place left to disagree) is that I do not believe these creeds and confessions are an authority of our faith. We cannot use them as an authority when debating or arguing theology.

Creeds have authority only insofar as they agree with the Scriptures. They have no authority in and of themselves. I do not, and never have, used confessions as an authority when debating here; I have used them to show what the historic beliefs of our Baptist forebears were, and that I am not unsupported in my understanding of Scripture.

@The Archangel made the comment in #49 that Scripture is the final authority. That is where we disagree (he by the statement and you by this post). I believe Scripture alone sufficient as a source and authority for doctrine. It is our only authority.

You seem to think that I disagree with you here, but I don't. In my post #47, which was my first post on this thread, I explained the purpose of confessions. They are there to show what a Church or Fellowship understand the Bible to teach. I went on to explain why I would never join a church that did not have a clear, Biblical statement of faith. But the reason is not because I think confessions have an authority of their own; they do not. Whatever authority they have is derived from their faithfulness to Scripture. But as I've pointed out several times, they are vital in keeping false doctrine away from a church. It is not enough to say, "We believe the Bible." the world is full of apostates who say they believe the Bible.

 

[JonC]

Creeds have authority only insofar as they agree with the Scriptures. They have no authority in and of themselves. I do not, and never have, used confessions as an authority when debating here; I have used them to show what the historic beliefs of our Baptist forebears were, and that I am not unsupported in my understanding of Scripture.

You seem to think that I disagree with you here, but I don't. In my post #47, which was my first post on this thread, I explained the purpose of confessions. They are there to show what a Church or Fellowship understand the Bible to teach. I went on to explain why I would never join a church that did not have a clear, Biblical statement of faith. But the reason is not because I think confessions have an authority of their own; they do not. Whatever authority they have is derived from their faithfulness to Scripture. But as I've pointed out several times, they are vital in keeping false doctrine away from a church. It is not enough to say, "We believe the Bible." the world is full of apostates who say they believe the Bible.

I am not sure that you are correct.

It seems to me that you are saying creeds have authority insofar as they agree with the Scriptures (something I strongly deny).

So that seems that we do disagree (which is fine).

All creeds agree with Scripture in the opinion of the one who holds them. But Scripture is actually Scripture. Creeds summarize belief, they do not prescribe belief (or should not prescribe Christian belief).

 

[agedman]

No, more the logic that since Jesus died as our sin bearer and received the punishment and wrath of God due us, he would experience what loss sinners do, separation from presence of God while hanging on that cross!

Which is nothing but human presentation and having no Scripture basis.

But threads have even long on that topic. There is no need to rehash a teaching that has been refuted with Scriptures, yet continues to clung too in desperation and perhaps loyalty.

 

[agedman]

The very same would have to also apply towards the PST viewpoint that he no longer affirms, as since that is the classic reformed/Baptist held position regarding the Atonement, needs to show why it is wrong now to hold to it anymore.

Such has been shown on numerous threads. By Scripture and Scripture principles.

Yet, why is it not accepted? Because it is easier to ignore Scripture then to modify what someone of esteem has taught, and others glibly have accepted.

It is the way of all learning.

Such a phenomenon was once termed “resistance to reorder.”

I would expect the phenomenon has been renamed at least once.

It was also once called “resistance to change”, too.

It is a psychological phenomenon that begins at about the third to fourth grade level, and hardens as one gets older.

Typical in the saying, “you can’t teach old dogs new tricks.” also was a recognition of this phenomenon.

 

[agedman]

A simple question, for all contributors.

Where is the Scripture in the creed?

Where is the references to the claim it was taught by “the holy fathers?”

At what point did the use of the Scriptures of the Physical body of Christ also start to include some human intangibles such as personality, intellect, temperament...

Can someone present the Scriptures that state the Lord Jesus Christ had to first conquer himself, bring His own body under subjection? After all, if He had two of what modern defining refers to as nature, then one or the other had to be placed into subjection, enslaved, less than 100%.

Seriously, the more I spend on the framers and the history of the Chalcedonian Creed the less I trust that it was not just a grand scheme, a power play backed by the politically driven to gain authority.

What follows certainly was, and it is long overdue that thoughtful folks set aside the creed, and re-examine the truth of Scriptures.

Yes, I know I am alone in this, but at least I am unanimous and not a split personality as some would present the Christ.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 8:30 AM Pacific.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am not sure that you are correct.

It seems to me that you are saying creeds have authority insofar as they agree with the Scriptures (something I strongly deny).

So that seems that we do disagree (which is fine).

Your own words or mine, as preachers of the Gospel, have authority just as far as they are in accord with Scripture It is just the same with a creed or confession of faith. What is the difference?

All creeds agree with Scripture in the opinion of the one who holds them. But Scripture is actually Scripture. Creeds summarize belief, they do not prescribe belief (or should not prescribe Christian belief).

In my post #47 I linked two articles that I wrote concerning the debacle of the Salters' Hall Synod of 1719. Two Presbyterian Ministers, Peirce and Hallett, had become 'closet Unitarians.' Here is an extract:

'Peirce wrote:-

“In conversation, I had always avoided such intricate points, and might easily do so still. But my chief concern was about my preaching and praying. Concerning the former, I was resolved to keep more close to the Scripture expressions than ever, and venture to say very little in my own words of a matter about which I was in such doubt myself. As to the latter, I could not find there was any occasion for making much alteration, whichever notion should appear like the truth. I was by this time thoroughly convinced that the common doctrine was not according to the Scriptures, and was settled in my present opinion, and from my first coming I avoided the common doxology.”

Yet at the same time, in a sermon on Presbyterian ordination, he declared, “Those who are admitted to the office should be believers. The necessity of this is very obvious- that which is necessary in a private Christian, to give him a right in the sight in the sight of God to the communion of the Church, must be for those who are admitted into the ministry- a profession of faith.

Peirce and Hallett were not allowed to carry on their deceptions for very long.........In the event, seven Presbyterian ministers were invited to attend a meeting in Exeter with thirteen deputed laymen to establish the true state of affairs. The ministers were invited to declare their faith in the Trinity in the words of the First of the 39 Articles of the Church of England. Now here is going down to Egypt for help with a vengeance! What had happened to the Westminster Confession of Faith that Non-conformists needed to go to an Anglican document to prove their orthodoxy? It seems that it had already fallen into disuse. Peirce, Hallett and some others declined this proposal, protesting that the Scriptures alone were the true rule of faith. “Fair enough,” replied their inquisitors, “But what doctrine do you deduce from the Scriptures? Do you draw from the Bible the teachings that have been held by the Church from ancient times and taught by the Presbyterian Church of which you are ministers?” When the ministers again refused to make an explicit declaration of their faith, the meeting drew to a close and the congregations served by these men were split. Some declined to listen any longer to their teaching, but others, whether unaware of, or unconcerned by, the controversy, continued to hear them.'

If the churches served by these men had held to the WCF, these men could have been challenged and dismissed quickly and easily. In the event, Unitarianism spread all across the Dissenting churches.

 

[JonC]

Your own words or mine, as preachers of the Gospel, have authority just as far as they are in accord with Scripture It is just the same with a creed or confession of faith. What is the difference?

In my post #47 I linked two articles that I wrote concerning the debacle of the Salters' Hall Synod of 1719. Two Presbyterian Ministers, Peirce and Hallett, had become 'closet Unitarians.' Here is an extract:

'Peirce wrote:-

“In conversation, I had always avoided such intricate points, and might easily do so still. But my chief concern was about my preaching and praying. Concerning the former, I was resolved to keep more close to the Scripture expressions than ever, and venture to say very little in my own words of a matter about which I was in such doubt myself. As to the latter, I could not find there was any occasion for making much alteration, whichever notion should appear like the truth. I was by this time thoroughly convinced that the common doctrine was not according to the Scriptures, and was settled in my present opinion, and from my first coming I avoided the common doxology.”

Yet at the same time, in a sermon on Presbyterian ordination, he declared, “Those who are admitted to the office should be believers. The necessity of this is very obvious- that which is necessary in a private Christian, to give him a right in the sight in the sight of God to the communion of the Church, must be for those who are admitted into the ministry- a profession of faith.

Peirce and Hallett were not allowed to carry on their deceptions for very long.........In the event, seven Presbyterian ministers were invited to attend a meeting in Exeter with thirteen deputed laymen to establish the true state of affairs. The ministers were invited to declare their faith in the Trinity in the words of the First of the 39 Articles of the Church of England. Now here is going down to Egypt for help with a vengeance! What had happened to the Westminster Confession of Faith that Non-conformists needed to go to an Anglican document to prove their orthodoxy? It seems that it had already fallen into disuse. Peirce, Hallett and some others declined this proposal, protesting that the Scriptures alone were the true rule of faith. “Fair enough,” replied their inquisitors, “But what doctrine do you deduce from the Scriptures? Do you draw from the Bible the teachings that have been held by the Church from ancient times and taught by the Presbyterian Church of which you are ministers?” When the ministers again refused to make an explicit declaration of their faith, the meeting drew to a close and the congregations served by these men were split. Some declined to listen any longer to their teaching, but others, whether unaware of, or unconcerned by, the controversy, continued to hear them.'

If the churches served by these men had held to the WCF, these men could have been challenged and dismissed quickly and easily. In the event, Unitarianism spread all across the Dissenting churches.

I would say the difference is authority.

In a typical SBC church the pastor is not the authority for doctrine. I believe we submit to a pastor's leadership (administratively) but his sermons must be tested against Scripture.

In the same way a creed may show what one believes but it never prescribes that belief. Creeds, in my opinion, should never be held as an authority for doctrine or faith.