creeds

Friend......sound biblical teaching is what a good confession or creed is;
see if you can say this much biblicaltruth in less words,or with better verses
http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html

 

I agree that creeds are similar to the 5 points of calvinism, known as tulip; a concise way of delineating the thoughts.

If a creed is used for such a purpose, there is nothing wrong with the creed. If, however, it is to be repeated each Sunday in church, I think it is overdone and becomes a form of worship, similar to repeating the so-called Lord's Prayer.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I tend to agree, although I don't think reciting a creed or the Lord's Prayer is a sin.

In Matthew 6:9 Jesus told his disciples "After this manner pray ye."

Basically, Jesus told the disciples, "pray like this." He did not say "pray these words."

 

Perhaps I can do that. It is good reference material just as any commentary is. The trouble with that creed (at least for me), is that I am not a Calvinist. Therefore I find many things that I can disagree with. However, I don't disagree with our church's statement of faith. That is much more important to me than any creed, as is the Bible itself which is my final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine.

 

DHK,
you said;I don't disagree with our church's statement of faith.

That statement serves as a protection as members can see where the church stands. I was once in a church whose statement of faith had only 8 points.
the 1689 is fairly solid [ i do not agree with some things in it] but it is a well worded document of how many have seen what the scripture reveals.
If someone can improve on it great,but i enjoy how they held the scripture as primary.

Which parts of the 5 pts do you think are off? t and L ?

 

This is not the place to get into a debate about the points of Calvinism, nor do I intend to. But I did notice that the document seemingly puts forth only one resurrection for both the just and the unjust:

That I can't agree with. Of course the eschatological views of the 17th century were in that time vastly different from those that are mostly accepted today.

I have a library of over 2,000 books. That includes many of the Creeds and Confessions. I can refer to them at any time as well as on the internet. They are simply reference material to me, as any commentary is. I am not against them. I just don't elevate them above the status of any other of my reference materials.

 

I have no real problem with a concise statement about what a particular church or denomination believes. But I would much rather have pointed people to the Scripture so they can state what they believe with Bible verses rather than asking them to turn to 1st Baptist Faith and Message 4.

I am just simply cutting out the middle man (the creed). The men who wrote those creeds went to the Bible and set out what they believed the Bible to teach. They then gave them to people to have as a guide. I am simply doing this with my church. Why should I give the people 2nd hand food?

 

The problem with creedal statements is that they often become of primary importance. Baptist want the emphasis on the word of God. Its too easy to take a traditional stance erroniously and make it supercede the scriptures themselves. This is why churches stay away from creeds. If creeds are put in a proper position of being subordinate to clear teaching of the bible and remain that way then most don't have an issue with it. However, creeds by their nature color ones view of scripture.

 

If all one needed was the Bible, there would be no need for ministers. As far as a treatise on Christian theology, the Bible is a cluttered, disorganized and unsystematic hodgepodge of revelation. If someone were to ask you, "What must I believe to be a Christian," and you simply handed him a Bible, you would be doing him a disservice. One would do better to offer a plow to a hungry child.

But creeds are a service. They're a ministry. They answer the question, "What do Christians believe," in a concise and systematic fashion. The ministers have plowed the Scriptures and sown to them, and the creeds are the fruit thereof ground fine, moistened and seasoned and placed in single-serving sized baby-food jars.

--------------------------



Now before some of you all go off half-cocked about my statement about the Scriptures not being all one needs, think about what I just wrote. I'm not saying that the Bible is insufficient, or that it is incomplete. I simply said it's fragmented and disorganized. But it's that way by design for two reasons:

1. It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter, Prov. 25:2
2. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, Gen. 3:19

It wasn't designed to yield its treasures to the slothful, or to the profane, and babes are certainly not equal to the task. The church would have no ministers if they weren't needed.

 

Tom,DHK,thinking stuff,

I like that we all agree that being biblically knowledgeable is of primary importance. Any books, and teachings are secondary...and yet sometimes necessary. Recently some of these threads that show many are confused about spiritual death and the fall as historically understood by the believing church I find a bit strange.

I think the books creeds are like a door way to promote biblical study and discussion......a good starting point to get the mind and spirit thinking.
Many ignore these helps and repeat errors that have already been set aside.
That is my concern.

 

Wow, God's Word is fragmented and disorganized... I'm sure that's a new one to God who is supremely organized. Thanks for putting the rationale for creeds so clearly and succinctly. Thanks for making me certain that I am right about what I have said.

Your ideas about why pastors are necessary makes me think you could use that reasoning to set up a pope and would no longer need the idea of the priesthood of believers. After all only a trained theologian can understand the Bible.

 

Maybe I am just being hard headed or maybe just too obtuse, but to encourage studying the creeds as a door way to studying the Bible is, for me, putting the cart before the horse. What I would say is that studying the Bible ought to be the door way to studying the creeds. It is a necessary first step. By studying the Word- and I am NOT saying that you are short changing studying the Bible - we are then able to study any creeds our church and/or denomination might believe.

I think it ought to be done through a thorough expositional preaching of the Bible.

 

Question. Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son or does the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father? And how much importance to you want to put on that position?

 

I've always found that the Baptist aversion to creeds was more the name "creed" and the tradition that surrounds that than the actual fact of what any given creed says. That, in large part, stems from our separatist roots, but as I said above, about 1/3 of all the current creeds and confessions that have existed since the beginning of the church are specifically Baptist.

We Baptists do have our own creeds that many of us use every Sunday without even realizing it... :smilewinkgrin:

Once saved always saved...
Whosoever will...
Come to Jesus...
Jesus saves...
Believer's Baptism...
Lord's Supper...
Take the hand of the pastor...
Priesthood of the believer...
Vote of the members...
Just one more verse...
Sing the first, third, and fifth verses...

And the list goes on and on. None of the above are found as texts of Scripture in that format, which means that those words, just like other creeds or confessions, are tidy summarizations of other more lengthy and detailed theology or doctrine.

 

The other side of the coin is true also. Many non-thinking individuals going by a creed would be repeating the same mistakes contained in the creed and thus the errors are perpetuated. Creeds are fallible statements made by fallible men.

 

From a Catholic/Orthodox perspective if a creed is established it is the basis for a "saving statement of faith" in which case if there is a issue with an aspect of it that you don't agree with it, then your salvation is considered to be in danger. Also note it's a base line for what you must believe as a Christian. Certainly the theif on the cross didn't have to recite such a statement. Didn't have to have a clear understanding of the Trinity. He just acknowledged that Jesus was righteous, he had a kingdom, and authority. He beged Jesus to remember him when he came into his kingdom. He may have some understanding that Jesus was God. But clearly his bottom line of belief and understanding was less than those who recite the creed.
Do you believe in "One Holy Catholic Church"? That Christ established one Church a seperate church a universal church claiming orthodoxy that is visible? I doubt it. Most if they believe in one holy universal church it is only Orthodox in the sense it is made up of actual regenerate believers and it certainly is not visible. Yet creedal churches want us to recognize this aspect.

 

You all keep equating any song that is sung with a creed, and you might be right. But you have proved my point. We sing a song that contains something we don't believe, but because it's a creed we now believe something that is unbiblical. We have made singing, saying a creed our means of teaching biblical truth. Somehow I don't think this is how we ought to be doing it.

I don't agree with your definition of songs being a creed, but you seem to accept that definition, so I think you are proving my point that we ought to start with thorough Biblical knowledge then, if we have time start studying the creeds.

I don't have an issue with the many of the creeds. I like them, but they are a Reader's Digest Condensed version of the Bible. I'd rather expose my people to the complete, unabridged book.