Creeds fall short when it comes to the Mystery of the GodHead

[hobie]

Colossians 1:18-20 King James Version (KJV)

18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Creeds are inadequate attempt by man to describe the glory of the GodHead. When God Himself is the subject, there is no finality of understanding, and there is no creed that can fully explain the infinite nature of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. We must stick to the scriptures and not presume anything they do not reveal, and not deny anything they do.

Here is a good read of the issue by Benjamin Franklin...

'The Failure of Creeds

"But there are so many creeds, all claiming to be right, that I should not know which to take. They were all made by learned men, and if they can not agree on the kind of a creed, how am I to decide which is right?" says one. It is a matter of great moment and of much relief that, aside from all these conflicting, clashing, and erring creeds, there is one book that all parties concede is right. They all agree that the Bible is right — that it came from God. They all further agree that it contains the law of God — that the law of the Lord is perfect. The only wonder is, that man ever attempted to make any other creed or law for the Church. Such an undertaking could not have commenced without two wicked assumptions:

1. That the law of God, as set forth in the Bible, is not sufficient — is a failure.

2. That the insufficiency or failure can be remedied by weak, erring, and uninspired men.

No man of intelligence will affirm, in plain terms, that the Bible is not sufficient for the government of the saints; or that man — uninspired man — can make a creed that will serve a better purpose than the Bible. Still such affirmations are implied in every attempt made by uninspired men to make a creed. If you admit, as all are bound to do, that the law of God is in the Bible; that nothing may be added to it, nothing taken from it, and that no part of it may be changed, there is not an excuse in the world for making another law. The law of God in the Bible is the law, the divine law, the supreme law, in the kingdom of God; and it is a treasonable movement to attempt to get up another constitution, law, name, body, or officers, apart from the constitution, law, name, body, and officers as found in the Bible.

But the matter now in hand is to find a safe course to pursue. Can this be done? All admit the Bible is right. All admit that the law of God in the Bible is right. All admit that those who follow the Bible honestly and faithfully, in faith and practice, will be saved. All admit that wherever any creed differs from the Bible is wrong. Then it is infallibly safe to take the Bible and follow it. When men undertake to prove that a human creed is a good one, they argue that it is like the Bible. If a creed like the Bible is a good one, why will not the Bible itself do? If the Bible will not serve the purpose — is insufficient and a failure — a creed like it would be equally insufficient. When men make a creed to do what the Bible would not do, they should certainly make it different from the Bible, or it would serve no better purpose than the Bible itself.'...www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/bfranklin/tgp1/TGP15.HTM">https://webfiles.acu.edu/departments/Library/HR/restmov_nov11/www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/bfranklin/tgp1/TGP15.HTM

 

[hobie]

And a even better one...

'In their article... Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes claim that the local churches “refuse to accept the orthodox creedal statements on the Trinity.”1 In endnote 3 they wrote, “A doctrine is said to be aberrant if it undermines or is in significant tension with the orthodox beliefs of the historic Christian faith as based in the Bible and expressed in the early Christian creeds.” By making the creeds the authoritative expression of biblical truth, Geisler and Rhodes actually make the creeds a higher rule of faith than the Bible....

The Bible testifies of itself: “All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). For man to consider the creeds as authoritative is for him to annul the authority of the Bible! It causes man to take the creeds as the standard instead of taking the Bible as the standard!..." https://contendingforthefaith.org/en/the-error-of-making-creeds-not-the-bible-the-rule-of-faith/

 

[Lamb]

Since you are anti-creed that means that you don't adhere to the Nicene Creed which is the rule for posting in this section of the site. I'm going to be moving this thread to the World Religion and Speculative Theology and that's where you should be posting from now on.

 

[Josiah]

Since you are anti-creed that means that you don't adhere to the Nicene Creed which is the rule for posting in this section of the site. I'm going to be moving this thread to the World Religion and Speculative Theology and that's where you should be posting from now on.

Of course....

And the irony is he goes on and on and on and on about what HE believes, so OBVIOUSLY he is passionately in favor of creeds. It's just the only ones he accepts are his own. "I'M right - every other Christian is wrong." That seems to be his fundamental creed.




.

 

[hobie]

Since you are anti-creed that means that you don't adhere to the Nicene Creed which is the rule for posting in this section of the site. I'm going to be moving this thread to the World Religion and Speculative Theology and that's where you should be posting from now on.

I guess Christians cant look at or talk about it. Nice...

 

[Bluezone777]

Nah what you want to do is challenge its validity which is why your thread got moved here. This board clearly states that you are to agree with it if you want to post in the Christian theology forum. Seeing as you entertain writings of people who don't agree with it suggests you don't either hence why your thread is here. Still though, no one's stopping you from talking about it as you can clearly continue discussing the topic so not sure what your problem is exactly.

 

[JRT]

Holy Trinity is not a description of God, but a description of a human experience of God. The Holy Trinity is a doctrine, adopted by the Christian Church in the 4th century CE, as a way of processing and understanding their experience with God. It is a product of dualistic Greek thinking which separated God from humanity; the holy from the profane; the flesh from the spirit, and the body from the soul. That was a cultural mindset and no one in that era of history knew how to step outside that frame of reference. However, that frame of reference died in that period of history we call the Enlightenment, leaving modern Christians with the impossible task of fitting a 4th century doctrine into a 21st century world view out of which it does not come and to which it cannot speak. Does that mean that the Trinitarian experience is wrong? No, I don’t think it means that, but it does mean that the Trinitarian language, which we use as we to seek to relate the Trinitarian experience is simply irrelevant. ~ John Spong

 

[hedrick]

CH management might want to consider just what it expects people to say about the Nicene Creed. There are Protestant traditions that are non-credal or even anti-credal that still accept the contents of the Nicene Creed, even though they would reject the Creed as an actual authority. It used to be that Baptists were non-credal. I'm not sure whether that's still true. It's also true of the Disciples and related groups. Calvin once refused to sign the Athanasian Creed, because he didn't want to give creeds authority, though in other contexts he supported them.

At any rate, saying that creeds are insufficient to fully understand God should, in fact, be non-controversial, since it's pretty generally understood that no humans fully understand God.

 

[Josiah]

Hobie



I think you can say anything you want (about anything). It's just that CH (like many similar websites) uses the ancient, ecumenical Nicene Creed as its description of orthodox, historic, traditional Christainity. So if you are going to post in the traditional Christian forum then, well... you need to be a traditional Christian and affirm traditional Christianity. If that's not you, then that's not the forum for you. SIMPLE. I'm struggle to understand how you don't understand that.

Now, does CH insist you ergo can't post at the site? NO. CH welcomes everyone...... Buddhists, Atheists, Communist, Hindus, Democrats, Russians, Transgenders, Seventh-Day Adventists, even Danes and Canadians can freely post at CH. I wonder why this isn't clear to you. BUT if one desires to post in the traditional Christian forum - in that singular, specific forum - they need to be.;. well.... like I said, I'm struggling to understand why this is not understood.


Now, you seem to also fail to understand that a "creed" is simply a proclamation of FAITH. "Credo" is Latin for "I BELIEVE." When you say "I don't believe in creeds" that's a creed (an incredibly stupid one but a creed). "I believe in sticking to the Bible and not creeds" is a creed (just a silly one). "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" is a creed. There are hundreds of them in the Bible itself. Now, if you hold that one is forbidden to say what they believe, what they hold as true, then you are disagreeing with most Christians - and also contradicting yourself.

Now, you may also hold that what a person believes should be entirely IRRELEVANT in Christianity and in Christian organizations; whatever one believes should be regarded as distinctively Christian, that to you it's Christian to believe that God is a myth, that Jesus was a Martian alien, that Buddha is the Savior, that "Left Behind" is the 67th book of the Bible, that eating Hostess Twinkies is a Sacrament. You may hold what one believes is entirely irrelevant in Christianity, and thus be opposed to having any required beliefs. Okay. I disagree with you but you may hold to that very radical relativistic view. But I find it silly and absurd. Why not start your own denomination, "The ANYTHING Goes Church?" Then praise one who holds that Jesus was a Flying Purple People Eater from Mars cuz what one believes is totally irrelevant to Christians and Christianity.






.

 

[atpollard]

I think you have misunderstood the purpose of a Creed. Creeds are not designed to teach all Truth, they were created to define “orthodoxy” (which is just what the church officially believes) to combat some specific error that is being taught. A Creed is only binding on those churches (local bodies of believers) that have accepted that Creed as representing the Truth found in scripture and taught by tradition.

Most Creeds are really pretty old and were accepted as truth by the vast majority of Christians when they were first created. I only mention this because there was very little disagreement about what the Creeds taught by people that disagreed deeply on a wide variety of other subjects ... so one taking issue with the basic teaching of the early Creeds must claim to see something that everyone else that read, wrote and spoke the original biblical language as their native tongue just never really understood correctly. As the saying goes: “Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.”

So let’s start with the “Apostle’s Creed” which was not written by the Apostles, but was reported to summarize their teaching and was written no later than the 4th Century and parts of it may have been written as early as the 2nd Century.

APOSTLE’S CREED

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic* church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

*that is, the true Christian church of all times and all places

What teaching about the Trinity found in the Apostle’s Creed do you find to be scripturally in error?

 

[NewCreation435]

there is no "adequate" means by which man expresses who God is. God is beyond our finite understanding and beyond words. He is infinitely greater than we can think or imagine. Your right about that

 

[JRT]

It is my understanding that the "Apostles' Creed" reached its final form in the 7th century. The first known reference to is in AD 390.

 

[atpollard]

It is my understanding that the "Apostles' Creed" reached its final form in the 7th century. The first known reference to is in AD 390.

Since the version that I quoted is in Modern English, it probably reached ITS final form in the 20th Century.

However I am content that the basic truth contained within it appears to have been nailed down by the 4th Century and in any event, prior to the East-West schism ... so it was an “ecumenical” Creed when it was written.

 

[atpollard]

It used to be that Baptists were non-credal. I'm not sure whether that's still true.

Yes, Baptists still reject any source as Authoritative except Scripture. Creeds are nice, and they can be useful, but they have no authority. Baptists also believe that each man is responsible to answer to his conscience before God and can and should never be compelled to “believe” anything that they are not convinced is correct. Thus a heretic can be shown the church door for disrupting worship, but not burned at the stake for false beliefs.

 

[Josiah]

Yes, Baptists still reject any source as Authoritative except Scripture. Creeds are nice, and they can be useful, but they have no authority. Baptists also believe that each man is responsible to answer to his conscience before God and can and should never be compelled to “believe” anything that they are not convinced is correct. Thus a heretic can be shown the church door for disrupting worship, but not burned at the stake for false beliefs.

I think you may be confusing issues.....

CREED is a proclamation of faith. "Credo" Latin. I believe. "Jesus is Lord" is a creed." "You are the Christ, the son of the living God" is a Creed. "No creed but the Bible" is a creed (just a hypocritical one, lol).

NORMA NORMANS is something regarded as NORMATIVE (or what you may mean by "authoritative"). Something accepted as categorically true. Above accountability, at least in epistemological practice. Some Protestants consider Scripture to be norma normans.

NORMA NORMATA is something regarded as normed by the norm (the literal meaning of the Latin), true because it abides by the norm. You might accept the Trinity as correct BECAUSE it has been normed by the norm (it's literally norma normata). Now, what IS and IS NOT accepted as norma normata may vary among Christians, but it is undeniable ALL CHRISTIANS have their corpus of things they regard as such. AS SUCH, you may look at something a JW or LDS person says and argue,"That conflicts or denies with the doctrine of the Trinity!" in which case you are using the doctrine of the Trinity normatively.


Creeds typically are formed to AFFIRM truth and DENOUNCE error (having those two "sides"). When Peter said "You are the Christ, the son of the living God" that was in response to "some say you are John the Baptist, other Elijah, still others Jeremiah." Each petition in the Nicene Creed denounces/rejects/condemns a heresy at the time and affirms a biblical truth. And yes, they tend to quickly become NORMATIVE and not just proclaiming, although they need not be. I can say the Nicene Creed without asking anyone else to agree with it - for anything. But it may - and often is - used normative (as for one forum at CH). Your Baptist church many not give a rip if anyone (their preachers, their deacons, their teachers, their members) believes anything in the Nicene Creed but a lot of churches do.


As for your comment about Baptists..... no one burns anyone at the stake, but I find it sad when tens of millions of Christians are forbidden to say to a person "that's wrong." Perhaps radical relativism reigns among every Baptist today? You are disallowed to say to a Atheist, "you are WRONG", all they are permitted to do is to be shown the church door? Sad. Perhaps this is what happens when truth is relevant... when "truth" is just what any individual feels at the time. I hope you don't accept that.




.

 

[atpollard]

Creeds:
There are denominations that require one to affirm one or more Creeds as a condition of membership. Baptists have no equivalent to the Book of Concord or to the Catholic Catechism except the Holy Bible. I know it sounds self-righteous, but it is one of 7 Baptist “distinctives” that make a Church a Baptist Church. We allow no authoritative statement of belief except the Bible, so Baptists reject Creeds on principle rather than the merit or flaws in the Creed itself. A creed has no more authority than a letter from St. Augustine or the Histories of Josephus.

Freedom of Conscience:
Since the 16th Century Baptist Churches have been comprised of General Baptists (so called because they believe Jesus made salvation generally available to anyone that chooses to believe) and Particular Baptists (so called because they believe that God calls particular individuals to salvation). The relative percentages of General and Particular Baptists has swung like a pendulum several times over the centuries with Particular Baptists in the minority but making a strong comeback at the moment. These two groups have argued for as long as there have been Baptists, but the right of an individual to follow their conscience means that no Particular Baptist dominant church would ever expel a General Baptist for refusing to accept the belief of the majority. Nor would any General Baptist dominant Church ever expel a Particular Baptist for being a Particular Baptist. If your view can be defended from scripture, then it will be tolerated. Open sin is dealt with according to scripture.

 

[atpollard]

As for your comment about Baptists..... no one burns anyone at the stake

Check out your history. Baptists argue with each other over every doctrine imaginable, but Baptists have never persecuted other denominations. It might be because we came from a long history of being imprisoned or “drown” for being a Baptist. Another Baptist Distinctive is the opposition to any state sponsored Church. Baptists just want the government to stay out of the pulpit and believe it is the job of the CHURCH to do the work of God without “help” from the world.

 

[hedrick]

I think you may be confusing issues.....

CREED is a proclamation of faith. "Credo" Latin. I believe. "Jesus is Lord" is a creed." "You are the Christ, the son of the living God" is a Creed. "No creed but the Bible" is a creed (just a hypocritical one, lol).

That's not what non-credal churches are talking about. To my knowledge no one objects to a person or group having a confession that expresses their faith. They object to requiring one to subscribe to a specific creed as authoritative or as a condition to being part of a church. Since the conservative takeover, Southern baptists are now pushing the edge of that, but in principle they are still non-credal.

There are also churches that I would call semi-credal. The only requirement for membership is confession of Christ as Lord and Savior, but pastors and/or officers have doctrinal standards. The PCUSA is like that, and I believe others are as well.

My point in all of this is that I normally understand sites such as this one as using the contents of the Nicene Creed as a definition, but not requiring one to subscribe to the creed as an authority. As such, I would not expect it to be a violation to criticize creeds, or say that they fall short of expressing the whole truth about God. Indeed I think the authors of the creeds would agree that they do not capture the whole truth about God. Particularly the Nicene Creed, which was created to deal with a specific controversial issue.

 

[Josiah]

To my knowledge no one objects to a person or group having a confession that expresses their faith. They object to requiring one to subscribe to a specific creed as authoritative or as a condition to being part of a church.

Which is what I said. They may not embrace any creed as necessary. "Jesus is Lord" or "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" or "Jesus is the Savior" or the Apostle's Creed or Nicene Creed.... these MAY be accepted as personal statements of individual faith, but rejected as something a person is required to believe to say be a member of their congregation or be their pastor or be a Sunday School teacher or youth minister. They MAY accept some creeds - but only as personal, individual statements of faith, not as normative.

My point in all of this is that I normally understand sites such as this one as using the contents of the Nicene Creed as a definition, but not requiring one to subscribe to the creed as an authority.

Ascribing to the Nicene Creed normatively IS required in order to post in one forum at CH. But only in that one single forum.





.

 

[Josiah]

@atpollard;

I know it sounds self-righteous, but it is one of 7 Baptist “distinctives” that make a Church a Baptist Church. We allow no authoritative statement of belief except the Bible

So, Baptists do not allow any requirement that your ministers are Christians? Affirm the Trinity? Accept the Bible? None is required to believe that Jesus is the Savior?

Isn't saying something about the Bible a creed? If that creed IS authoritative, then don't Baptists have an authoritative creed which is used normatively? Perhaps it's just that Baptists are forbidden to tell a preacher what is right or wrong teaching, as long as that minister claims it's biblical?

A creed has no more authority than a letter from St. Augustine or the Histories of Josephus.

Historic/orthodox Protestants accept ONE norma normans - the black and white words of the Bible. But we DO accept that there are beliefs that can be made required (used normatively) - for example, Jesus is the Savior. AND we hold that there are things that are normed BY the norm (in epistemology, this is called "norma normata") for example the Two natures of Christ or the Trinity or the authority of Scripture. Evidently, Baptists reject this.

Since the 16th Century Baptist Churches have been comprised of General Baptists (so called because they believe Jesus made salvation generally available to anyone that chooses to believe)

Okay, so GENERAL Baptists have creeds and regard them as norma normata AND used them normatively/authoritatively? A professor at a GENERAL BAPTIST owned/operated seminary would be required to teach that Jesus is the Savior AND that salavation is available for all AND that all may choose that. Some HUGE creeds there! Or are you saying Baptists don't permit such regulation, a GENERAL BAPTIST may (if he/she so chooses) personally believe that but no baptist professor, pastor, teacher MUST affirm those things, they are welcome to teach that Jesus is a myth and each saves self by their own good works? Which is it? Do GENERAL BAPTISTS have beliefs or not? Are they allowed to require such (use those creeds normatively) or are they forbidden to? Can the president of Dallas Seminary be a Muslim or it is required that the one in that position MUST affirm the creeds of the GENERAL BAPTISTS - the things GENERAL BAPTISTS hold?

the right of an individual to follow their conscience means that no Particular Baptist dominant church would ever expel a General Baptist for refusing to accept the belief of the majority.

I see. So a pastor in the PARTICULAR BAPTIST church is free to dogmatically preach that babies are to be Baptized, that Baptism saves.... he is welcome to preach that Christ is literally present in the Sacrament and that most Christians will spend time in Purgatory and that buying Indulgences will shorten the time in Purgatory because PARTICULAR BAPTISTS cannot require anything, everyone is free to follow their own individual conscience and this preacher is just doing that. If the church wanted to outst him as their pastor, the PARTICULAR BAPTISTS would forbid that, no one can be asked (much less required) to go against conscience?

If your view can be defended from scripture, then it will be tolerated.

In the view of WHOM?

I can defend infant baptism and real presence from Scripture (and history and tradition and creeds) so I'd be welcomed to be a professor of dogmatics at any Baptist seminary? If not, then what CREED am I being subjected to, one that says infants can't do their part in the salvation of themselves and thus cannot be baptized? One that says "the meaning of is is is not" so Christ says it is NOT his body and blood? Wait.... everyone is accountable to one thing - their own conscience, no one is PERMITTED to restrict that, so since I'm going by my conscience and no Baptist is permitted to ask me to violate that, then I'm right cuz I'm following my conscience ... and since there is no Creed (just the words of the Bible) and the Bible SAYS "Baptism now saves you" and "this IS my body" thus I can be a professor of theology at any Baptist seminary, no Baptist is allowed to hinder that?

Odd. And it seems very chaotic and impractical. And extremely relativistic. But good to know: all Baptist preachers are permitted and welcomed to teach ANYTHING WHATSOEVER - as long as it's his/her own conscience and according to himself/herself, it's biblical (like infant baptism and real presence in the Eucharist). Now I see the reason for your comment about Baptist theology being all over the place!




.




.