The Authority of Scripture: Creedal vs. Sole Authority

Every TRUE doctrine of faith/worship is derived from Scripture, either directly or by clear implication, such as the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. All TRUE creeds are also derived from Scripture; otherwise they're not true, simple as THAT.

Whether we heard the Gospel from a preacher, Granny, a friend, a Gospel tract, or any other source, it penultimately came from SCRIPTURE. (It ULTIMATELY came from Jesus, of course.)

We simply have no other source for our intel about God besides His word.

 

Well, at least it didn't autocorrect it to incineration.

 

calvin was working from a mistranslation of "hades". Jesus made it clear that upon death the soul goes to hades, either 'paradise' as He did (as He said on the cross) or to 'torments', as did the rich man in His parable about the rich man & the beggar Lazarus.

 

This shows a misunderstanding of the purposes and uses of creeds and confessions.. They are there to show what a Church or Fellowship understand the Bible to teach.
I was saved in a church that declared that it followed the Bible and had no confession of faith. This seemed fine to me until I found that the church was steadily moving away from what the Bible teaches. People had come into the church from various denominational backgrounds and were pushing the leadership in various directions. I left the church about 15 years ago, and now I understand that preachers are instructed not to use the word 'sin' because of its negative connotations but to use 'mistakes' instead. Yet the church still proclaims itself to be 'Bible-believing' although the Gospel has not been proclaimed there SFAIK for some years.
If that church had had a statement of faith, the people bringing in destructive doctrines (a la 2 Peter 2:1 & Jude 4), could have been challenged as to what they were promoting. As a result of my experiences, I would never join a church again that did not have a clear Biblical statement of faith so that teachers could be held to account.

The motto of Reformed churches is (or should be) Ecclesia Reformata semper Reformanda, 'The Reformed church is always in need of Reformation according to the Scriptures.. All confessions need reviewing regularly to ensure that they are in line with the Bible. Someone has mentioned the so-called Apostles' Creed and the idea that our Lord descended into hell. This is a misunderstanding of Ephesians 4:9 and needs to be discarded despite the antiquity of the creed.

I have more to say but it will have to wait until I have more time. May I recommend these articles which concern an event that happened exactly 300 years ago next year. It illustrates how sudden;y and drestically denominations can collapse when they abandon creeds and confessions. But you only have to look at PCUSA to see that.
Learning The Lessons of History (1)
Learning the Lessons of History (2)

 

I see what you are saying, but you are arguing against a straw man. I clearly have already affirmed that 1.) Scripture is the final authority; 2.) Creeds are only correct insofaras they reflect Scripture, etc.

As I have said for the umpteenth time, the procedural, rhetorical burden is on you. To place it on me to defend the majority position when you are the one challenging it or not, is to commit a logical fallacy. I simply will not join you in that fallacy. If you will not grasp that, our impasse remains.

What you personally affirm or deny does not change the majority position. For instance, you can declare our current president to be "Not my president." You may argue the impropriety of the Electoral College, the this, the that, the other thing. None of thoughts or arguments will change the fact that the current president is The POTUS. It is not up to me to argue that the POTUS is the POTUS. He simply is and his being POTUS is not open to affirmation (until, of course, election day 2020).

You may dislike the Chalcedon position, you may dislike the definitions contained in that definition, your opinion may be that Chalcedon got it flat-wrong. None of these things will change that Chalcedon has been the orthodox and majority position for 1500 years. The creed itself and orthodoxy itself (and the orthodoxy of the creed) is simply never subject to your (or my) opinion. You may disagree with the creed, but in doing so--from a rhetorical standpoint--you must state why. And, if scripture is--as you say--your ultimate authority, you ought to do it from scripture. What one cannot do is to simply "nullify" the creed and decide that any and all who affirm it must prove its veracity.

Now, can you see that my opposition is on procedural grounds alone? Can you see that I am not unwilling to go to Scripture publicly (which I have already done some many years ago), but am unwilling to participate in a logical fallacy that shifts the burden of proof? Can you see this impasse is not about creeds, orthodoxy, or scripture at all, but is only about procedure?

The Archangel

 

Ok... But how does your statement "our disagreements have to be centered on God's word" and your looking at Calvin defending his view through scripture relate to the impasse at which you and I find ourselves? You're requiring me to do something you have--heretofore--have not done--Defend your rejection of Chalcedon (or it's definition(s)) with scripture. Why?

The Archangel

 

Jesus was speaking to the repentant thief on the cross.Luke 23:43And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.”

Jesus paid the penaltu for MAN'S sins, not those of the angels who followed Satan. His father allowed Him to undergo enough physical abuse to have killed an ordinary man several times over. So, when He died, His Spirit went to paradise, where He doubtlessly greeted the patriarchs & told them, "I am Shiloh" & many other details of what had occurred & what was coming.

Scripture is the highest authority of faith/worship on earth now. If any part of any creed of faith/worship doesn't comply with Scripture, the whole creed comes into question, and at the very least, the part that's non-Scriptural is false.

 

In most cases these are distinctions without differences.

This is a strawman since Martin and I are not arguing against this. Not meaning to speak for Martin, I would think we are both in agreement.

But, if you don't accept a creed or a congregation doesn't represent a creed, the onus is on the person or congregation to articulate why.

One of the points of creeds that you are not seeing is that creeds codify doctrine. Using Chalcedon as an example, Chalcedon was written to codify a proper doctrine of Christ (Christology) against several heresies like Arianism, Nestorianism, Apollarianism, etc. The creeds didn't just seek to nullify the heretical positions. Rather those who wrote the creeds drew from scripture the position of scripture and codified it as doctrine. That doctrine has remained largely unchanged in its one person; two natures formula until now. It is both creed and doctrine, but it only remains doctrine until a proper scriptural argument demonstrates it to be false.

No one here--and certainly not I--am unwilling to go to scripture. But, since a creed which establishes doctrine is being questioned, it is not up to those who agree with it to prove its veracity.

The Archangel

 

Exactly what I said. All of them were to show what their church or fellowship believed the Bible to teach.
'Behold, how good and how pleasant it is....etc.'

 

Amen! 'The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge and obedience'
Baptist 1689 Confession 1:1.

 

Your implication here is that I will budge from scripture, which simply is not the case. That I view Chalcedon as a showcase of biblical Christology does not negate my reliance on Scripture. I see that Chalcedon was drawn from and agrees with Scripture while you do not. Therein lies the rub... you have stated your disagreement but you have not articulated that disagreement from Scripture.

Again, your implication here is noted, but you are chasing a windmill. If one is to defend a creed, one needs to defend it against a challenge--and you have made no such challenge. You have simply dismissed it, and that a challenge does not make.

I may believe the sky is blue; you may believe it to be chartreuse. But it is preposterous for you to insist that someone defend the sky being blue before you state why it is chartreuse.

The Archangel

 

No scriptural support? I wonder why?