creeds

If your definition of being creedal is that if we have sung a hymn or made a statement that we have no creed but the Bible, then we are all creedal. But I don't accept your definition.

I may agree with the varying statements but they don't guide what I believe. I don't measure someone's beliefs by comparing it to the 2 you mentioned or any other statement of beliefs.

Yes, I don't think Baptists are creedal. Even our statement of faith (the Baptist Faith and Message) is very general and I don't use it to determine if a church or a person is biblical.

 

Why in this world, would someone need a creed when the Bible, which is the Word of God, is sufficient??????

 

And if I may add The Bible should be our only rule of order, doctrine, and practice.

 

Baptists are, historically and presently, a confessional people.

Creeds are boxes to put churches in that define their totality of belief. Confessions are frameworks in which affiliated churches collaborate.

 

Creeds are historical evidence of beliefs, and not a recital of faith. In this sense are not creedal. We have our distinctives, generally 5 or 6 of them, but still variations to those.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Why.......Mormons and Jw;s say they believe the bible also.
Of course the bible is sufficent. But what does it teach? When you answer that question......that is your creed or confession.

 

There is no difference between a creed and a confession.

 

One does not have to have a creed to be biblically sound......people can get this from the Bible alone. However, I must add quickly:

1. Whether people use the historic creeds or not, the concepts they teach are essential. The teachings of some historic documents are essential doctrine. For example, the statements from Nicea and Chalcedon about Jesus are essential. These documents accurately reflect what the Bible teaches.

2. Sometimes creeds are said to be divisive, and people feel that holding to creeds creates division. However, just the opposite is the case. Those who do not write down what they believe end up dividing more than those who follow the historic creeds. The Churches of Christ are a prime example.

So while creeds are certainly not on the same level as the bible, they do summarize essential teachings that cannot be denied and still remain orthodox. I have found that those who deny them dislike the concept of creeds, and often times have not read them to determine if they are important or not.

 

A Baptist church is defined by Baptist distinctives, those distinctives that they hold to that make it Baptist and separate from other churches.
Apart from that there is a wide variety of Baptist churches.
They differ mostly on two fronts: their constitutions, and their statement of faiths, the latter which is the most important. Do a survey. Go to a number of different Baptist websites and look at the statement of faiths posted. See how they differ. Very few have the same statement of faith. A statement of faith is not a creed. It is a statement of essential doctrine which that particular church holds to. Take a survey of most pastors of Baptist churches. I would dare say that most pastors have even read any of the historic creeds and don't care to. They don't care about creeds. They care about their local church, their statement of faith, what their flock believes, and how their church is going to function--not about the others in the area or in history.

 

The ones I have heard are OK. I dont recall ever hearing or reading anything sinful in any of them.

But the danger of them is that they can produce laziness and a disregard for the scriptures.

I was raised in the Catholic apostate organization. We sheep would come in every sunday and coldly drone out the words of those creeds in unison.

And then turn around and leave so biblically Iliterate it was shamefull. And we were not unique. Its the NORM for your average garden variety Catholic church and Catholic parishiners.

God have mercy

 

Ah, so very true. But it is unfortunate, for the ancient councils were all called to deal with some particular false teaching that had arisen. The councils gathered representatives from the world-wide church, decided the issue, and published a statement of the position of the universal, worldwide church.

Today, we have the same heresies running around the countryside, and if the local pastors aren't aware of the historic arguments, they are susceptable to repeating them. So the issue is not whether we hold to one creedal document over the other; rather, the issue is the doctrinal questions behind them. We don't want to create the same church splits that happened throughout history.

So your statement above is quite right. I only wish it were not so.

 

What is important to me as a Baptist?
1. The Bible is my final authority in all matters of faith and practice (and that is the first and most important of the Baptist distinctives).
2. Soul Liberty--the freedom to believe what I believe the Bible teaches (another important Baptist distinctive).

Putting these into practice instead of reading dusty old creeds will keep me from error. Men of God need to be men of the book, men of prayer. The ECF believed many doctrinal errors, if not heresies. Those I am aware of.

The Bible teaches not to put your trust in man. We are to trust the Word instead. Study to show yourselves approved unto God...
That is our duty. Not study the creeds; but study the Word.