Creeds - What Do You Thnk About Them?

Alive, when do you think these creeds were written? We got the Nicene Creed in 325 and the Apostles Creed was already in existence at that time.

 

Creeds, including the Baptist Faith and Message, are man created and should never be used as a litmus test of a person's Christianity.

The BF&M has been used as a club in seminaries and on missionaries at times ... and this is wrong.

 

Not that it's a big deal for me, but he also ordained female deacons.

I let another guy on here know that. He had been using a Carroll quote as his signature. Next time he posted, it had been changed, which is really funny, since this guy is often tacky and doesn't seem to like me much.

 

A Christian who knows very little of Church History and common sense would say such silly things as the above.

And so it goes. A biblical church which uses a full-orbed creed such as the 1689 as a subordinate document would be in far greater shape than the troubles you landed in.

 

There is nothing wrong with creeds in themselves. They are merely a collection of common beliefs amongst a group of people. Creeds may or may not be Biblically accurate, but that is up to the individual to figure out. I really do not think anyone here on this board equates them with inspired Scripture.

 

Where ever did you get the idea that the first creed didn't come into existence for "centuries"? Not only does the Bible contain dozens (if not hundreds) of creeds, confessions, and catechisms, but Irenaeus' Rule of Faith, which many scholars consider to be the first extra-Biblical creed.

What you seem to be overlooking is that, typically, the purpose of creeds was to address an problem with doctrine in the church and to defend sound doctrine. The very fact that these problems arose without a creed and that a creed was needed to defend against them shows the necessity for creeds.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but the Old Testament, "the writings of Paul, Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc" all contain creedal statments and confessions. What are the writings of Paul and Peter if not a catechism for the church?

I disagree. Does your church have a statement of faith? How does your church differentiate its beliefs from those of the Mormon stake across town?

That's funny, Jesus said that prayer can do the same thing. Do you still pray? He also said that doing acts of charity can do the same thing. Do you still do acts of charity? Paul said that going to church can do the same thing. Do you still go to church?

Yes he can. So what? That doesn't make creeds bad. That just means that he doesn't understand the Gospel.

 

I disagree. I have no problem with a seminary or a church saying, "This is what we believe and if you are going to teach here, you need to believe this." In fact, I would prefer a seminary or church or even Pastor be open about their beliefs so I do not have to wonder what they believe in a myriad of other situations. As well, if I taught at a Seminary where I had substantial disagreement with the Seminary on doctrinal issues, I should not wait for the "club to be used" but I would find a better fit. I have always questioned those, like Molly Marshall, who knew the doctrine of her seminary, signed on to the statement, and when it was enforced they made the President look immoral. That, I believe, is a lack of integrity.

 

I don't think anyone has said you're not a Christian if you don't affirm the 2000 BF&M.

 

I disagree. I think creeds are very usuful and advance the cause of Jesus Christ. If you think Jesus had no cause, or purpose, or does not currently I think you have misunderstood the Scripture or are just not articulating well what you mean.

I really have not met anyone whose church uses a creed or statement of faith to have subtituted their own faith for creed. I am not even sure that statement makes any sense.

 

Amen. All this is very true, and to the heart of the matter. There were creeds in existence before the writing of the NT, and Paul quotes some of them. The first in writing that I know of is the Didache, which was 1st century.

The early church was not in a state of bliss. It had troubles and arguments and disagreements just like today.....1st Corinthians was written to solve many issues that had already cropped up. Several of the other NT books were written to specifically combat false teachings that had already popped up.

Creeds merely clarify what we believe, and don't take the place of scripture. They were all in response to correcting false teachings that were dividing the church.

Those who today say that creeds cause division and try to only use the scirptures without a summary of their beliefs, do so in the name of unity. Ironically, those are the churches that have had more splits and divisions than the ones who can agree on a creed or doctrinal statement. For example, the Churches of Christ proudly and loudly will tell you that they follow no creed, only the bible. But their history is an exercise in church splits, divisions, and arguments. Without some summary of their beliefs that they all agree on, they've split over everything from communion cups to pitch-pipes, what to call the preacher, what to name the church, etc.

So the divisions in church history are real, and are sometimes good, often sinful. But the divisions are caused by the sinful humans, not the creeds or doctrinal statements. As human as the creeds may be, they have prevented far more arguments than they have caused.

We are in danger of losing the classic doctrines of our faith because we don't study them.

But as has been said here, mental assertion of a statement does not a Christian make.

 

Right. What's so funny is that they'll swear up and down that they don't affirm any creeds but then, when you go to their website, the first thing you see is a statement of faith, which is a creed.

 

There is nothing wrong with creeds.

If no one on this board equates them with inspired Scripture -- why even mention that?

I have asked before -- Have you read the London Confession in its entirety?

 

Creeds or covenants are acceptable as long as they are subordinate to the scriptures.

 

rsr...

Of course there is a universal church.

It consists of all of the born again christians, world wide.

And what a magnificent church it is.

 

Ok...change my quote to...

And my point is just as valid. I'll rephrase it...

If creeds are so neccesary, how did the church not fall completely apart and dissolve into a mass of witchcraft and false gospels and the like during all those HUNDREDS of years before the 1st creed came along?

 

Yes I have, and probably before you were born. The reason I mention "that" is because the whole argument centers around creeds being opinions of men vs Scripture being the Inspired Word of the Lord. It seems to me you have a problem reading simple English. By the way, please quit putting prepositions at the end of sentences. You constantly correct spelling errors of others, then go on to make elementary school grammer errors.

 

Where ever did you get the idea that the first creed didn't come into existence for "centuries"? Not only does the Bible contain dozens (if not hundreds) of creeds, confessions, and catechisms, but Irenaeus' Rule of Faith, which many scholars consider to be the first extra-Biblical creed, was written in the mid-2nd century, roughly one hundred years after the writing of the last book of the New Testament.

What you seem to be overlooking is that, typically, the purpose of creeds was to address an problem with doctrine in the church and to defend sound doctrine. The very fact that these problems arose without a creed and that a creed was needed to defend against them shows the necessity for creeds.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but the Old Testament, "the writings of Paul, Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc" all contain creedal statments and confessions. What are the writings of Paul and Peter if not a catechism for the church?

 

Those who oppose creeds but sing songs which are not word-for-word out of the Bible, have no reason to oppose creeds. Their opposition to creeds is shown hypocritical by their willingness to sing extra Biblical songs.