creeds

A couple of thoughts:

Just because you call a statement like that a creed, doesn't make it so. Or are you saying that to say "I believe the Bible" is equal to the creeds you mentioned?

DHK is correct, I don't study the creeds, but I do study history. Just because I don't care for the mindless reverence some of you display for the various creeds doesn't mean that I am unaware of the history that spawned them.

Of course, error and heresy gets repeated down through history. But I don't use the creeds to determine what is heretical. I use the Scripture. Now if that is a creed - and it's not - then I am fine with being creedal.

There are other ways of determining that these group are cults and heresies: the best method is through the Scripture.

You are acting as if accepting a particular creed is the antidote for all heresy. I would say that sound biblical teaching is the antidote to these false beliefs.

 

There is really no way around the issue of creeds and confessions. Even in the text of Scripture, we find in the earliest written NT letters evidence that the early church had simple creedal statements, so if we hold that our "creed" or "confession" is nothing more than the Bible, we already have creedal statements in our in-box. Note this link:

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/history/creeds.bible.txt

Here is a site that lists historical and modern creeds and confessions, up to and including the 1978 Chicago Statement:

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds.htm

I notice that of all these listings that several (about a third of all the listed entries!) are distinctly "Baptist" in nature, and indeed the early Baptist confessions defined the Baptist practice and helped to set us apart from the Catholic and Protestant churches.

What would be an interesting and worthy project would be a side-by-side comparison with all the creeds and confessions of Christianity, where at a glance one could see where things have changed or where points of agreement or disagreement occur. I have studied various creedal and confessional statements side-by-side in a limited fashion (for instance the 1644 London Baptist Confession and the next iteration, 1689 London Baptist Confession) to see where differences lie (not many) but I have not yet undertaken a compendium of all the creeds and confessions. I did a major paper on those two (and also bounced off the 1742 Philadelphia Confession). My guess is that there are far more similarities than differences until one gets to the finer points of church ordinance (just using the word "ordinance" is a creedal or confessional statement - more than half the church world uses "sacrament").

 

Then I guess I am not a "legitimate evangelical". I don't reverence the creeds of men.

 

Thanks for changing what I wrote and correcting my spelling and use of the word "men". Of course, all those who wrote the creeds you mentioned were all men, so maybe I was correct afterall.

It is because I have a reverence for God's truth that I don't have the kind of reverence you require for the creeds of men, oops, sorry, humanity.

Why does reverence for creeds indicate legitimacy about evangelicalism? I was always taught that reverence for God and His Word was what evangelicalism was about.

 

I don't see much difference between creeds and confessions. Creed is a word coming from the Latin "believe." That's all it is, and that's all confessions are. They are saying, here is what we believe the Bible teaches.

My church has adopted the Baptist Faith and Message as its doctrinal statement. It doesn't mean that every member has to embrace every word. But it is a useful statement for those who may desire to join our fellowship.

Since Baptists are a fairly diverse group, any time we seek a church home, we need to ask for its doctrinal statement, or confession of faith. That statement will tell me a lot, and may be the deciding factor in whether I join that church or not.

Although it is not to be used as a strait-jacket for members, pastor or staff, a creed or confession does provide some protection from those who would depart from it.

A good way to use the confession would be to give a copy to a prospective member (staff or pastor) and ask them "Can you live with this?" And, we could tell the prospect, "we don't expect you to agree with every point in the Baptist Faith and Message, but we would expect you not to preach or teach contrary to it."

Shoot, even I don't agree with every jot and tittle in the BF&M.

 

Then I am content to not be a legitimate evangelical. I don't repeat them nor do I reverence them. btw, according to Dictionary.com reverence is also a verb.

And thanks for making sure I am politically correct. That's always important for me.

 

They are curiosities but they are not essential. If I never had to read one I would be just as well off as having read some of them.

This is a confession, albeit a Confession of sin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confiteor

I used to have it memorized, and said it frequently.

This one of the simplest creeds, very common, and very concise:

The Apostle’s Creed

http://www.silk.net/RelEd/2creeds.htm

From the same source the “Nicene Creed.”

I find error in both of these creeds. They are not the Bible. They are opinions of what the Bible say, written by fallible men, and often are wrong, as is the case here.

Our authority is the Word of God. Creeds are curiosities outside of the Bible that may or may not have value depending on the purpose of the individual reading them. For the average pastor they don't have much value.

 

I think Tom and DHK have made the most sense (if not the only sense) in this debate. We are now just repeating what has been said. It is hard to get through to some one who is a legend in his own mind, but I guess we keep trying.

 

With this, I am out of here. But jaigner, what you write sounds about as arrogant as I've heard on here. Consider your last 2 posts responding to what someone else said:

We're in self-denial, but you represent those enlightened ones who don't deny it. We're just not being very honest with ourselves, I guess, at least according to your writing.

We're all tied to that which is of time (pragmatism) but you are tied to the historical traditions.

I can't imagine that you are trying to sound that arrogant. But the rest of us on here are trained as theologians also. We're trained as students of the Word of God. We're just disagreeing with you. There's no need to act like we're the great unwashed without any kind of theological perspective.

 

I'm not tied to any creed or confession. I don't recite anything. But I don't see anything wrong with reciting what you believe.

I do subscribe to the Baptist Faith and Message because it is a reasonable representation of what I believe.

So are the 1689 London Confession of Faith, and the Philadelphia Confession of Faith.

I don't have to agree with everything in those confessions, particularly any reference to the Universal Church.

My general agreement with the doctrines explained in those confessions also makes me a Baptist.