The Authority of Scripture: Creedal vs. Sole Authority

[JonC]

I might have noticed that a three hundred twenty-nine times, or thereabouts.

I'll bet ya $10 there will be at least one more before the day is up.

 

[agedman]

You said:

Well ignoring the terminological inexactitude that Calcedon is de facto Nestorianism, ...

in response to JonC.

I got muddled up in the conversation.

Perhaps if I re-present, you can sharpen the awareness of how we might not agree. For much of what you have written and JonC has written is agreeable.

Would you agree that the incarnation of Christ being fully God in a fully human body is neither modern thinking Chalcedonian nor Nestorian, but is indeed that which the Scriptures present?

Presented in such passages as John 1, Hebrews 10, Luke 1 in which the body was most certainly completely human with the basic needs required to remain healthy, yet it clothed the fullness of God?

Of course you do, and so (from what I have read) does JonC.

It would follow then that definitions are problematic.

Prior to Chalcedonian presentation, the thinking was that a complete physical body was united with God.

Because our own defining of “nature” is not confined to what is “seen” and “handled” (1 John) but includes the intangibles of personality, intellectual capacity, ... the Chalcedonian in modern times is taken beyond the framework of the authors’ thinking.

Because the defining of two completely separate individualistic natures (Nestorian) is certainly unbiblical, yet more often presented by some who suggest the human expressions of sorrow, will, distress, avoidance, ... show Christ having human intangibles, the disregard is not complete - not even on the BB.

Christ came, born of 100% human with all that the body requires for sustaining. Just as Adam also had a body requiring sustaining.

What Christ did not have was the “fallen” human nature, but was the “Holy One (child)” from conception (Luke 1). Christ is 100% God (eternal) with all the intellect, will, personality, temperament, desire expressions,... of God.

As God breathed into Adam the eternal, Christ was not “breathed” into Mary, but “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.”

Not Nestorian or modern thinking Chalcedonian.

But that which is Scripture based.

Some on the board would attempt to show the Lord Jesus Christ as having two intellects, two wills, two desires, two personalities, ...

He was not of that frame.

 

[robycop3]

No scriptural support? I wonder why?

Because it's not true!

Jesus did NOT go to hell; He went to PARADISE, as He Himself said He'd do. He told the repentant thief on the cross, "Today, you shall be with me IN PARADISE."

 

[The Archangel]

But I never thought we'd have people claiming elements of one's creed had to be disproved before they would consider seeking out God's Word in a matter of doctrine. I guess we can strike Scripture alone off of the Baptist distinctive list. It's no longer Scripture alone but Scripture as the "final authority" (which I think may mean the last resort).

If the creed or confession has to be disproved before one can go to Scripture then, I believe, that creed or confession is being held as an authority.

If the creed or confession has to be disproved before one can go to Scripture then, I believe, that creed or confession is being held as an authority.

I am not saying that you reject Scripture. I am saying that I think you would do better to go there instead of creeds or confessions when dealing with doctrine - not as a final authority but as the only authority.

Again, you're intentionally misrepresenting my stated position--which is insulting. The context of the initial disagreement was about you giving a scriptural argument as to why the Chalcedonian formula was wrong. NOTICE: I was not saying everyone had to disprove a creed; I was saying you had to disprove the creed because you were the one challenging it. The "You" I have been using is singular, not plural. To make it even more simple: JonC as the one challenging the Chalcedonian formula must say why Chalcedon is wrong. To insist the orthodox, majority view must be proven is to commit a logical fallacy. I simply would not engage you in support of that fallacy. This is what I have been saying.

To make it even more abundantly clear:

• Creeds point us to scripture
• Creeds are only correct insofaras they rightly reflect scripture
• Creeds do not have to be disproven before they are rejected
• JonC--as the one challenging Chalcedon--had to state his argument from scripture before I would engage (so as to avoid participation in a logical fallacy).

Now, the citation of the BF&M is entirely different from the citation of Chalcedon. The BF&M is not Chalcedon. The Chalcedonian formula of one person/two natures has been the orthodox definition of Christology for 1500 years, the BF&M has not. The BF&M does not define "orthodoxy;" it is a statement of agreed-upon beliefs. In that way, London 1689 is the same type of confession used by Baptists, not all Christendom. Chalcedon, on the other hand, is agreed upon by the vast majority of Christians--and has been for a millennium-and-a-half--and it is the definition of orthodox Christology. So, there is a fundamental difference between Chalcedon and the BF&M.

Now, JonC, as one who has stated that you are greatly insulted by others who misrepresent your position, why do you continually misrepresent mine?

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

Again, you're intentionally misrepresenting my stated position--which is insulting. The context of the initial disagreement was about you giving a scriptural argument as to why the Chalcedonian formula was wrong. NOTICE: I was not saying everyone had to disprove a creed; I was saying you had to disprove the creed because you were the one challenging it. The "You" I have been using is singular, not plural. To make it even more simple: JonC as the one challenging the Chalcedonian formula must say why Chalcedon is wrong. To insist the orthodox, majority view must be proven is to commit a logical fallacy. I simply would not engage you in support of that fallacy. This is what I have been saying.

To make it even more abundantly clear:

• Creeds point us to scripture
• Creeds are only correct insofaras they rightly reflect scripture
• Creeds do not have to be disproven before they are rejected
• JonC--as the one challenging Chalcedon--had to state his argument from scripture before I would engage (so as to avoid participation in a logical fallacy).

Now, the citation of the BF&M is entirely different from the citation of Chalcedon. The BF&M is not Chalcedon. The Chalcedonian formula of one person/two natures has been the orthodox definition of Christology for 1500 years, the BF&M has not. The BF&M does not define "orthodoxy;" it is a statement of agreed-upon beliefs. In that way, London 1689 is the same type of confession used by Baptists, not all Christendom. Chalcedon, on the other hand, is agreed upon by the vast majority of Christians--and has been for a millennium-and-a-half--and it is the definition of orthodox Christology. So, there is a fundamental difference between Chalcedon and the BF&M.

Now, JonC, as one who has stated that you are greatly insulted by others who misrepresent your position, why do you continually misrepresent mine?

The Archangel

I can only respond to what you post. If you are saying you do not believe creeds and confessions an authority for orthodoxy then I can happily accept that. But you may want to work on articulating your thoughts with greater clarity.

There are three reasons I thought you to hold creeds in such a position.

1. You presented a creed as indicative of the position of the "Orthodox Church".
2. You presented the Bible as the "final authority".
3. You spoke of not believing creeds "in and of themselves" as authoritive.

If you mean to say creeds are no ground for authority when it comes to doctrine then I agree. This is my only point.

 

[The Archangel]

I can only respond to what you post. If you are saying you do not believe creeds and confessions an authority for orthodoxy then I can happily accept that. But you may want to work on articulating your thoughts with greater clarity.

There are three reasons I thought you to hold creeds in such a position.

1. You presented a creed as indicative of the position of the "Orthodox Church".
2. You presented the Bible as the "final authority".
3. You spoke of not believing creeds "in and of themselves" as authoritive.

If you mean to say creeds are no ground for authority when it comes to doctrine then I agree. This is my only point.

That's not at all what I have been saying--and you know it. You know I have posted that your asking for me to prove Chalcedon before you disprove it is a logical fallacy. I have posted that; you have seemingly ignored it. You know I have posted that creeds point us to scripture, but have taken my words out of context.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

That's not at all what I have been saying--and you know it. You know I have posted that your asking for me to prove Chalcedon before you disprove it is a logical fallacy. I have posted that; you have seemingly ignored it. You know I have posted that creeds point us to scripture, but have taken my words out of context.

The Archangel

Brother, you are assuming again.

I do not know what you are saying anymore. It seems to me you are flip flopping between affirming Scripture as the only authority for our faith and the final authority.

Which is it?

If you are saying a biblically derived creed is sufficient for doctrine, for correction and reproof then we disagree. If you are saying creeds have no authority over orthodoxy then we agree.

 

[The Archangel]

Brother, you are assuming again.

I do not know what you are saying anymore. It seems to me you are flip flopping between affirming Scripture as the only authority for our faith and the final authority.

Which is it?

If you are saying a biblically derived creed is sufficient for doctrine, for correction and reproof then we disagree. If you are saying creeds have no authority over orthodoxy then we agree.

Strawman; Red Herring.

I have told you already, but you are ignoring what I have said.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

Strawman; Red Herring.

I have told you already, but you are ignoring what I have said.

The Archangel

Really?


I am saying I don't understand what your position and it seems to me you are bouncing from A to B. I ask for you to clarify. And this, you believe, is a strawman and red herring.

This is a VERY SIMPLE topic requiring a VERY SIMPLE answer.

Are biblically derived Creeds an authority for orthodoxy?

A. Yes.
B. No.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

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!"

From Post #27

How can a supposed conservative Christian Theologian/Teacher make such outlandish, unfounded statements and come to such baseless decisions as Sproul Sr.? Has anyone of any Christian renown challenged this nonsense?

(Or, if I am missing something, I expect to be gently reprimanded.)

 

[TCassidy]

You have misunderstood.

Perhaps you didn't make your point clearly. You do seem to excel in obfuscation.

If the creed or confession has to be disproved before one can go to Scripture then, I believe, that creed or confession is being held as an authority.

He didn't say that.

I am saying that I think you would do better to go there instead of creeds or confessions when dealing with doctrine - not as a final authority but as the only authority.

When a creed quotes scripture the scripture is the only authority.

Both you and @The Archangel are misunderstanding my posts here.

Again, you make it as difficult as possible.

This is not an “attack” on anyone.

Yes, it is.

 

[TCassidy]

Have you ever noticed that it's the Calvinists that cling to creeds?

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

 

[Yeshua1]

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

I know of no Baptist though who would say that the Creeds/Confessions are equal to the scriptures...

 

[Yeshua1]

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.)

The basic problem is with the word hell, as its actually Hades in the Greek text....

 

[JonC]

Perhaps you didn't make your point clearly. You do seem to excel in obfuscation.

He didn't say that.

When a creed quotes scripture the scripture is the only authority.

Again, you make it as difficult as possible.

Yes, it is.

Perhaps you three (you, @The Archangel , and @Martin Marprelate ) are reading too much into this thread. Perhaps the thread is too simple for such complex minds. (kidding)

I will try to be super clear and avoid obfuscation.

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

 

[Yeshua1]

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).

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!

 

[JonC]

The basic problem is with the word hell, as its actually Hades in the Greek text....

Not with Calvin. He knew it could be the grave but rejected the interpretation in favor of a literal Hell because this is the punishment from which we were delivered. This argument is found in the Institutes. I think you would appreciate his argument (just adjust descending into Hell to suffering a hell on the Cross).

I wish I could direct you to the exact place but I am not at home.

 

[Yeshua1]

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 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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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 very same would have to also apply towards the PST viewpoint that he no longers 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 an

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.

Are you saying here then that those of us who like to use a Confession, or hold to differing viewpoint are not using the scriptures?

 

[JonC]

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.

That was exactly my point on the other thread!

Ugggg....we agreed again.