The Authority of Scripture: Creedal vs. Sole Authority

[robycop3]

Every TRUE doctrine of faith/worship is derived from Scripture, either directly or by clear implication, such as the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. All TRUE creeds are also derived from Scripture; otherwise they're not true, simple as THAT.

Whether we heard the Gospel from a preacher, Granny, a friend, a Gospel tract, or any other source, it penultimately came from SCRIPTURE. (It ULTIMATELY came from Jesus, of course.)

We simply have no other source for our intel about God besides His word.

 

[JonC]

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

This issue is not which denominations hold a certain creed.

Creeds should be descriptive of what a person or church believes. Within each denomination, perhaps even individual, these things are interpreted differently. Christ descending into Hell has been affirmed in different ways (i.e., the grave, literally suffering in Hell, and suffering on earth a type of Hell). As I've said, I agree with the Chalcedon Creed if I define certain terms. But I do not hold the Creed as prescriptive of my faith, nor do I hold it as an accurate description as it has been interpreted various ways. I believe the Creed accurate in its intended purpose guarding against heresy, but not as a source for doctrine (not something upon which to build).

Even if all churches but one believed in a creed, it would still be the duty of the Christian debating that one church to rely on Scripture rather than creed in defending a view.

As Christians we have to stand on the Word of God. Anytime we are unwilling to go to Scripture we are on shaky ground. When we explore attributes of God we need to go to God's revelation of Himself - not statements about the Bible but Scripture itself.

As I said early on, it just surprised me that some are unwilling to explore a position through Scripture. This is simply foreign to my limited experience with churches (I've attended SBC churches all of my life). We affirm the SBC faith & message but it is not something from which we would argue against non-SBC churches. Even within our churches it is not authoritative. We don't "teach it" but we teach the Scripture that it is based upon.

Do you see our differences here? For me, it approaches a Catholic understanding to ask me to prove a creed wrong before you would be willing to go to the Bible. The reason I believe this is that it takes a position developed by bishops developed in the 5th century and essentially declares it the orthodox position of the Christianity. This is, in my opinion, placing the philosophy of the Fourth Ecumenical Council before Scripture. Even if I agreed with the Creed (again, when I define the terms I do), to discuss issues about God we need to go to Scripture and not creeds.

I hope this helps clear up any misunderstandings that may have existed. I think we simply disagree on the role of a creed as I believe the teachings of creeds must be proved against Scripture rather than accepted until disproved.

The Bible is not only our final authority - the "last stop" in a biblical discussion. It is our only authority. We should start and end with God's Word. That is my position and I will not be moved form it. I hope that at least you can accept that and we can move on in the dialogue from any individual creed.

What creeds and confessions do you hold?
What about your church (and how do they hold them? Are they required to be affirmed for a Christian to join your congregation?

John

 

[JonC]

Jesus went to jail?

Oh yea...that's another interpretation of the creed.

Thanks for catching the typo. My phone often decides what is typed, and I let it because it is a smart phone. But as of yet it hasn't converted to Christianity so it makes mistakes.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Oh yea...that's another interpretation of the creed.

Thanks for catching the typo. My phone often decides what is typed, and I let it because it is a smart phone. But as of yet it hasn't converted to Christianity so it makes mistakes.

Well, at least it didn't autocorrect it to incineration.

 

[robycop3]

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).

calvin was working from a mistranslation of "hades". Jesus made it clear that upon death the soul goes to hades, either 'paradise' as He did (as He said on the cross) or to 'torments', as did the rich man in His parable about the rich man & the beggar Lazarus.

 

[JonC]

calvin was working from a mistranslation of "hades". Jesus made it clear that upon death the soul goes to hades, either 'paradise' as He did (as He said on the cross) or to 'torments', as did the rich man in His parable about the rich man & the beggar Lazarus.

I am not sure that the difference was Calvin’s source. The reason is how he defended the idea that “Hell” is not hades or the grave.

In his Institutes Calvin states that we must find a more concrete explanation apart from the Creed. His conclusion is that “it was expedient at the same time for him [Christ] to undergo the severity of God’s vengeance, to appease his wrath and satisfy his just judgment. For this reason, he must also grapple hand to hand with the armies of hell and the death of everlasting death.”.

But I do agree that the proper interpretation is "the grave". Christ overcame sin and death.

Notice, however, that Calvin does abandon the Creed to go to Scripture. While I disagree with his interpretations and conclusions on this issue he at least has the integrity to defend his view through the Bible.

And that is what we must do. Even when we disagree our disagreements have to be centered on God's Word rather than opinions, theories, creeds, and confessions.

A confession is good to summarize one's view, but it is worthless to defend it. As Christians we must lean on God's Word, not man's.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Can we hold Scriptural authority as our sole standard for belief and practice if we are unwilling to set aside our creeds, confessions, and statements of faith to defend or construct doctrine on God’s Word?

This shows a misunderstanding of the purposes and uses of creeds and confessions.. They are there to show what a Church or Fellowship understand the Bible to teach.
I was saved in a church that declared that it followed the Bible and had no confession of faith. This seemed fine to me until I found that the church was steadily moving away from what the Bible teaches. People had come into the church from various denominational backgrounds and were pushing the leadership in various directions. I left the church about 15 years ago, and now I understand that preachers are instructed not to use the word 'sin' because of its negative connotations but to use 'mistakes' instead. Yet the church still proclaims itself to be 'Bible-believing' although the Gospel has not been proclaimed there SFAIK for some years.
If that church had had a statement of faith, the people bringing in destructive doctrines (a la 2 Peter 2:1 & Jude 4), could have been challenged as to what they were promoting. As a result of my experiences, I would never join a church again that did not have a clear Biblical statement of faith so that teachers could be held to account.

The motto of Reformed churches is (or should be) Ecclesia Reformata semper Reformanda, 'The Reformed church is always in need of Reformation according to the Scriptures.. All confessions need reviewing regularly to ensure that they are in line with the Bible. Someone has mentioned the so-called Apostles' Creed and the idea that our Lord descended into hell. This is a misunderstanding of Ephesians 4:9 and needs to be discarded despite the antiquity of the creed.

I have more to say but it will have to wait until I have more time. May I recommend these articles which concern an event that happened exactly 300 years ago next year. It illustrates how sudden;y and drestically denominations can collapse when they abandon creeds and confessions. But you only have to look at PCUSA to see that.
Learning The Lessons of History (1)
Learning the Lessons of History (2)

 

[JonC]

This shows a misunderstanding of the purposes and uses of creeds and confessions.. They are there to show what a Church or Fellowship understand the Bible to teach.
I was saved in a church that declared that it followed the Bible and had no confession of faith. This seemed fine to me until I found that the church was steadily moving away from what the Bible teaches. People had come into the church from various denominational backgrounds and were pushing the leadership in various directions. I left the church about 15 years ago, and now I understand that preachers are instructed not to use the word 'sin' because of its negative connotations but to use 'mistakes' instead. Yet the church still proclaims itself to be 'Bible-believing' although the Gospel has not been proclaimed there SFAIK for some years.
If that church had had a statement of faith, the people bringing in destructive doctrines (a la 2 Peter 2:1 & Jude 4), could have been challenged as to what they were promoting. As a result of my experiences, I would never join a church again that did not have a clear Biblical statement of faith so that teachers could be held to account.

The motto of Reformed churches is (or should be) Ecclesia Reformata semper Reformanda, 'The Reformed church is always in need of Reformation according to the Scriptures.. All confessions need reviewing regularly to ensure that they are in line with the Bible. Someone has mentioned the so-called Apostles' Creed and the idea that our Lord descended into hell. This is a misunderstanding of Ephesians 4:9 and needs to be discarded despite the antiquity of the creed.

I have more to say but it will have to wait until I have more time. May I recommend these articles which concern an event that happened exactly 300 years ago next year. It illustrates how sudden;y and drestically denominations can collapse when they abandon creeds and confessions. But you only have to look at PCUSA to see that.
Learning The Lessons of History (1)
Learning the Lessons of History (2)

I disagree.

The purposes of a creed or confession can be multiple depending on the person or church holding the confession.

For example, the purpose of the Apostles Creed was a statement of Christian belief. The purpose of the Chalcedonian Creed was to address and safeguard against heresies. The purpose of the Southern Baptist F&M is as a statement of denominational belief.

I do believe, however, that when discussing God we HAVE to go to God's Word. The reason I believe this is that Scripture is God's self revelation and Jesus is God's full revelation of Himself to man.

Things like confessions and creeds (and church covenants, and statements of faith) are useful. But they are useful within the congregation that affirms those confessions and creeds as representative of their belief (not as doctrine). When arguing or even exploring biblical truths we have to go to the Bible.

For example, if I were to question the eternal security of the believer my pastor would be wrong to point me to the SBC faith and message. If I were to question whether Jesus walked on water in one nature and slept in another a Christian would be wrong to point me to the Chalcedonian Creed. If I were to question whether or not Jesus was raised on the third day, it would be foolish to point to the Apostles creed. We go to Scripture....period.

And that is the reason I started this thread. It is not that we hold a summary of what we believe and constantly review it with Scripture. I have no problem with that. It is necessary to remain relevant to culture (to address theological issues that arise). BUT what I am arguing against is going to the creeds as doctrine. That is simply wrong, IMHO.

Please indulge me a moment, brother. This will help me to understand your position regarding this topic:

If you and I were arguing about a theological issue, would you refuse to go to Scripture until I disproved a creed? Or would you say "to the Word"? Would you be willing to go with me to Scripture?

 

[The Archangel]

This issue is not which denominations hold a certain creed.

Creeds should be descriptive of what a person or church believes. Within each denomination, perhaps even individual, these things are interpreted differently. Christ descending into Hell has been affirmed in different ways (i.e., the grave, literally suffering in Hell, and suffering on earth a type of Hell). As I've said, I agree with the Chalcedon Creed if I define certain terms. But I do not hold the Creed as prescriptive of my faith, nor do I hold it as an accurate description as it has been interpreted various ways. I believe the Creed accurate in its intended purpose guarding against heresy, but not as a source for doctrine (not something upon which to build).

Even if all churches but one believed in a creed, it would still be the duty of the Christian debating that one church to rely on Scripture rather than creed in defending a view.

As Christians we have to stand on the Word of God. Anytime we are unwilling to go to Scripture we are on shaky ground. When we explore attributes of God we need to go to God's revelation of Himself - not statements about the Bible but Scripture itself.

As I said early on, it just surprised me that some are unwilling to explore a position through Scripture. This is simply foreign to my limited experience with churches (I've attended SBC churches all of my life). We affirm the SBC faith & message but it is not something from which we would argue against non-SBC churches. Even within our churches it is not authoritative. We don't "teach it" but we teach the Scripture that it is based upon.

Do you see our differences here? For me, it approaches a Catholic understanding to ask me to prove a creed wrong before you would be willing to go to the Bible. The reason I believe this is that it takes a position developed by bishops developed in the 5th century and essentially declares it the orthodox position of the Christianity. This is, in my opinion, placing the philosophy of the Fourth Ecumenical Council before Scripture. Even if I agreed with the Creed (again, when I define the terms I do), to discuss issues about God we need to go to Scripture and not creeds.

I hope this helps clear up any misunderstandings that may have existed. I think we simply disagree on the role of a creed as I believe the teachings of creeds must be proved against Scripture rather than accepted until disproved.

The Bible is not only our final authority - the "last stop" in a biblical discussion. It is our only authority. We should start and end with God's Word. That is my position and I will not be moved form it. I hope that at least you can accept that and we can move on in the dialogue from any individual creed.

What creeds and confessions do you hold?
What about your church (and how do they hold them? Are they required to be affirmed for a Christian to join your congregation?

John

I see what you are saying, but you are arguing against a straw man. I clearly have already affirmed that 1.) Scripture is the final authority; 2.) Creeds are only correct insofaras they reflect Scripture, etc.

As I have said for the umpteenth time, the procedural, rhetorical burden is on you. To place it on me to defend the majority position when you are the one challenging it or not, is to commit a logical fallacy. I simply will not join you in that fallacy. If you will not grasp that, our impasse remains.

What you personally affirm or deny does not change the majority position. For instance, you can declare our current president to be "Not my president." You may argue the impropriety of the Electoral College, the this, the that, the other thing. None of thoughts or arguments will change the fact that the current president is The POTUS. It is not up to me to argue that the POTUS is the POTUS. He simply is and his being POTUS is not open to affirmation (until, of course, election day 2020).

You may dislike the Chalcedon position, you may dislike the definitions contained in that definition, your opinion may be that Chalcedon got it flat-wrong. None of these things will change that Chalcedon has been the orthodox and majority position for 1500 years. The creed itself and orthodoxy itself (and the orthodoxy of the creed) is simply never subject to your (or my) opinion. You may disagree with the creed, but in doing so--from a rhetorical standpoint--you must state why. And, if scripture is--as you say--your ultimate authority, you ought to do it from scripture. What one cannot do is to simply "nullify" the creed and decide that any and all who affirm it must prove its veracity.

Now, can you see that my opposition is on procedural grounds alone? Can you see that I am not unwilling to go to Scripture publicly (which I have already done some many years ago), but am unwilling to participate in a logical fallacy that shifts the burden of proof? Can you see this impasse is not about creeds, orthodoxy, or scripture at all, but is only about procedure?

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Notice, however, that Calvin does abandon the Creed to go to Scripture. While I disagree with his interpretations and conclusions on this issue he at least has the integrity to defend his view through the Bible.

And that is what we must do. Even when we disagree our disagreements have to be centered on God's Word rather than opinions, theories, creeds, and confessions.

Ok... But how does your statement "our disagreements have to be centered on God's word" and your looking at Calvin defending his view through scripture relate to the impasse at which you and I find ourselves? You're requiring me to do something you have--heretofore--have not done--Defend your rejection of Chalcedon (or it's definition(s)) with scripture. Why?

The Archangel

 

[robycop3]

I am not sure that the difference was Calvin’s source. The reason is how he defended the idea that “Hell” is not hades or the grave.

In his Institutes Calvin states that we must find a more concrete explanation apart from the Creed. His conclusion is that “it was expedient at the same time for him [Christ] to undergo the severity of God’s vengeance, to appease his wrath and satisfy his just judgment. For this reason, he must also grapple hand to hand with the armies of hell and the death of everlasting death.”.

But I do agree that the proper interpretation is "the grave". Christ overcame sin and death.

Notice, however, that Calvin does abandon the Creed to go to Scripture. While I disagree with his interpretations and conclusions on this issue he at least has the integrity to defend his view through the Bible.

And that is what we must do. Even when we disagree our disagreements have to be centered on God's Word rather than opinions, theories, creeds, and confessions.

A confession is good to summarize one's view, but it is worthless to defend it. As Christians we must lean on God's Word, not man's.

Jesus was speaking to the repentant thief on the cross.Luke 23:43And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.”

Jesus paid the penaltu for MAN'S sins, not those of the angels who followed Satan. His father allowed Him to undergo enough physical abuse to have killed an ordinary man several times over. So, when He died, His Spirit went to paradise, where He doubtlessly greeted the patriarchs & told them, "I am Shiloh" & many other details of what had occurred & what was coming.

Scripture is the highest authority of faith/worship on earth now. If any part of any creed of faith/worship doesn't comply with Scripture, the whole creed comes into question, and at the very least, the part that's non-Scriptural is false.

 

[The Archangel]

I disagree.

The purposes of a creed or confession can be multiple depending on the person or church holding the confession.

For example, the purpose of the Apostles Creed was a statement of Christian belief. The purpose of the Chalcedonian Creed was to address and safeguard against heresies. The purpose of the Southern Baptist F&M is as a statement of denominational belief.

In most cases these are distinctions without differences.

I do believe, however, that when discussing God we HAVE to go to God's Word. The reason I believe this is that Scripture is God's self revelation and Jesus is God's full revelation of Himself to man.

This is a strawman since Martin and I are not arguing against this. Not meaning to speak for Martin, I would think we are both in agreement.

Things like confessions and creeds (and church covenants, and statements of faith) are useful. But they are useful within the congregation that affirms those confessions and creeds as representative of their belief (not as doctrine). When arguing or even exploring biblical truths we have to go to the Bible.

But, if you don't accept a creed or a congregation doesn't represent a creed, the onus is on the person or congregation to articulate why.

For example, if I were to question the eternal security of the believer my pastor would be wrong to point me to the SBC faith and message. If I were to question whether Jesus walked on water in one nature and slept in another a Christian would be wrong to point me to the Chalcedonian Creed. If I were to question whether or not Jesus was raised on the third day, it would be foolish to point to the Apostles creed. We go to Scripture....period.

And that is the reason I started this thread. It is not that we hold a summary of what we believe and constantly review it with Scripture. I have no problem with that. It is necessary to remain relevant to culture (to address theological issues that arise). BUT what I am arguing against is going to the creeds as doctrine. That is simply wrong, IMHO.

One of the points of creeds that you are not seeing is that creeds codify doctrine. Using Chalcedon as an example, Chalcedon was written to codify a proper doctrine of Christ (Christology) against several heresies like Arianism, Nestorianism, Apollarianism, etc. The creeds didn't just seek to nullify the heretical positions. Rather those who wrote the creeds drew from scripture the position of scripture and codified it as doctrine. That doctrine has remained largely unchanged in its one person; two natures formula until now. It is both creed and doctrine, but it only remains doctrine until a proper scriptural argument demonstrates it to be false.

Please indulge me a moment, brother. This will help me to understand your position regarding this topic:

If you and I were arguing about a theological issue, would you refuse to go to Scripture until I disproved a creed? Or would you say "to the Word"? Would you be willing to go with me to Scripture?

No one here--and certainly not I--am unwilling to go to scripture. But, since a creed which establishes doctrine is being questioned, it is not up to those who agree with it to prove its veracity.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

I see what you are saying, but you are arguing against a straw man. I clearly have already affirmed that 1.) Scripture is the final authority; 2.) Creeds are only correct insofaras they reflect Scripture, etc.

As I have said for the umpteenth time, the procedural, rhetorical burden is on you. To place it on me to defend the majority position when you are the one challenging it or not, is to commit a logical fallacy. I simply will not join you in that fallacy. If you will not grasp that, our impasse remains.

What you personally affirm or deny does not change the majority position. For instance, you can declare our current president to be "Not my president." You may argue the impropriety of the Electoral College, the this, the that, the other thing. None of thoughts or arguments will change the fact that the current president is The POTUS. It is not up to me to argue that the POTUS is the POTUS. He simply is and his being POTUS is not open to affirmation (until, of course, election day 2020).

You may dislike the Chalcedon position, you may dislike the definitions contained in that definition, your opinion may be that Chalcedon got it flat-wrong. None of these things will change that Chalcedon has been the orthodox and majority position for 1500 years. The creed itself and orthodoxy itself (and the orthodoxy of the creed) is simply never subject to your (or my) opinion. You may disagree with the creed, but in doing so--from a rhetorical standpoint--you must state why. And, if scripture is--as you say--your ultimate authority, you ought to do it from scripture. What one cannot do is to simply "nullify" the creed and decide that any and all who affirm it must prove its veracity.

Now, can you see that my opposition is on procedural grounds alone? Can you see that I am not unwilling to go to Scripture publicly (which I have already done some many years ago), but am unwilling to participate in a logical fallacy that shifts the burden of proof? Can you see this impasse is not about creeds, orthodoxy, or scripture at all, but is only about procedure?

The Archangel

There is a little difference between what you are saying here and what I believe.

When it comes to matters of faith I don't believe that Scripture is the final authority. I believe Scripture is the only authority.

Not only do we end there, but we start there and stay there.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

For example, the purpose of the Apostles Creed was a statement of Christian belief. The purpose of the Chalcedonian Creed was to address and safeguard against heresies. The purpose of the Southern Baptist F&M is as a statement of denominational belief.

Exactly what I said. All of them were to show what their church or fellowship believed the Bible to teach.
'Behold, how good and how pleasant it is....etc.'

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Bible is not only our final authority - the "last stop" in a biblical discussion. It is our only authority.

Amen! 'The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge and obedience'
Baptist 1689 Confession 1:1.

 

[JonC]

In most cases these are distinctions without differences.



This is a strawman since Martin and I are not arguing against this. Not meaning to speak for Martin, I would think we are both in agreement.



But, if you don't accept a creed or a congregation doesn't represent a creed, the onus is on the person or congregation to articulate why.



One of the points of creeds that you are not seeing is that creeds codify doctrine. Using Chalcedon as an example, Chalcedon was written to codify a proper doctrine of Christ (Christology) against several heresies like Arianism, Nestorianism, Apollarianism, etc. The creeds didn't just seek to nullify the heretical positions. Rather those who wrote the creeds drew from scripture the position of scripture and codified it as doctrine. That doctrine has remained largely unchanged in its one person; two natures formula until now. It is both creed and doctrine, but it only remains doctrine until a proper scriptural argument demonstrates it to be false.



No one here--and certainly not I--am unwilling to go to scripture. But, since a creed which establishes doctrine is being questioned, it is not up to those who agree with it to prove its veracity.

The Archangel

Again we disagree in the same line. I will not budge from Scripture when it comes to knowing about God.

That said, I perhaps could have stated that upfront instead of assuming we were like minded regarding the necessity to defend even widely accepted creeds via Scripture.

Keep in mind I have very limited experience (none) outside of SBC membership. Thanks for sharing your view.

 

[JonC]

Exactly what I said. All of them were to show what their church or fellowship believed the Bible to teach.
'Behold, how good and how pleasant it is....etc.'

Yes...but outside of ones fellowship as doctrine is another issue.

 

[The Archangel]

Again we disagree in the same line. I will not budge from Scripture when it comes to knowing about God.

Your implication here is that I will budge from scripture, which simply is not the case. That I view Chalcedon as a showcase of biblical Christology does not negate my reliance on Scripture. I see that Chalcedon was drawn from and agrees with Scripture while you do not. Therein lies the rub... you have stated your disagreement but you have not articulated that disagreement from Scripture.

That said, I perhaps could have stated that upfront instead of assuming we were like minded regarding the necessity to defend even widely accepted creeds via Scripture.

Again, your implication here is noted, but you are chasing a windmill. If one is to defend a creed, one needs to defend it against a challenge--and you have made no such challenge. You have simply dismissed it, and that a challenge does not make.

I may believe the sky is blue; you may believe it to be chartreuse. But it is preposterous for you to insist that someone defend the sky being blue before you state why it is chartreuse.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

Your implication here is that I will budge from scripture, which simply is not the case. That I view Chalcedon as a showcase of biblical Christology does not negate my reliance on Scripture. I see that Chalcedon was drawn from and agrees with Scripture while you do not. Therein lies the rub... you have stated your disagreement but you have not articulated that disagreement from Scripture.



Again, your implication here is noted, but you are chasing a windmill. If one is to defend a creed, one needs to defend it against a challenge--and you have made no such challenge. You have simply dismissed it, and that a challenge does not make.

I may believe the sky is blue; you may believe it to be chartreuse. But it is preposterous for you to insist that someone defend the sky being blue before you state why it is chartreuse.

The Archangel

Not at all. I am not implying anything about you. If I say "I'm hungry" I'm not implying you are not). I am simply stating that I will neither argue for or against a creed. I hold to Scripture and not creed or confession. Even the SBC F&M, which belongs to my denomination, is not something from which I would argue or insist another prove wrong.

On the other thread I had challenged a view upon which you brought the creed to bear (as if the creed proved the view in question). That is the problem I see in our churches. When someone questions an interpretation some are quick to offer tradition, creeds, confessions , and the like but a bit slower to offer Scripture.

I firmly believe this is because these people cannot defend their belief through Scripture. Instead they hold to what was taught them, never understanding how those ideas really relate to Gods Word. This was what I saw with people I cared about regarding OSAS. Regardless as to the validity of the doctrine they remained truly ignorant when it came to supporting it biblically. This is a form of biblical illiteracy.

Had I realized you were unaware that people not only interpreted the creed differently but many reject it in its entirety then I would have spent more time with you prior to trying to push you to Scripture.

Either way, I do not recognize that creed, or any creed, as an authority for my faith. You and I disagree. But know this - the sky is colorless.

In Christ

John

 

[Wesley Briggman]

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!"

No scriptural support? I wonder why?