APOSTLE'S or NICENE Creed?

[Josiah]

Who on earth said we shouldn't go to God's Word? The creeds are a way to unite Christians that briefly tell of our Savior

Yup.

An additional thought ....

The word "credo" means "I believe." Creeds are ANY statement of faith. There are MANY in the BIble itself; for example St. Thomas', "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And I don't believe that such is unbiblical.

The ancient "ecumenical" creeds are sometimes found in the singular ("I believe") and sometimes in the plural ("we believe") and BOTH are equally okay. They are statements of faith.

The creed, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" is only 10 words long (in English anyway) and only addresses one issue, but it's perfectly valid.



Blessings!


- Josiah



.

 

[Messy]

Yup.

An additional thought ....

The word "credo" means "I believe."

Ah! Thanks. I read the old Roman creed was what they said at baptism.
Nowadays it would be something like: I want to be baptized cause I want to follow Jesus. If you first have to read the whole Bible, it doesn't hurry up. Church can only rent the swimming pool for an hour. Else it costs more.

 

[prism]

I don't care that other denominations don't believe in it. It's the truth of Christianity and the creeds contain that truth.

Again, Lutherquest. Objective justification was a huge debate point amongst confessional Lutherans with about a 50-50 split, so even the Lutheran denomination couldn't fully agree.

 

[prism]

Who on earth said we shouldn't go to God's Word? The creeds are a way to unite Christians that briefly tell of our Savior.

No one said we shouldn't go to Scripture, it's just that the Scriptures give a much fuller revelation of God.
Neither should we cease using the Creeds.

 

[prism]

Nicely put, Lamb. But somehow, we're still not getting through.

However, I can't think of any way to be clearer than we already have been; and this is not an elusive or complicated issue.

That's right, I'm dumb.

 

[prism]

Yup.

An additional thought ....

The word "credo" means "I believe." Creeds are ANY statement of faith. There are MANY in the BIble itself; for example St. Thomas', "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And I don't believe that such is unbiblical.

The ancient "ecumenical" creeds are sometimes found in the singular ("I believe") and sometimes in the plural ("we believe") and BOTH are equally okay. They are statements of faith.

The creed, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" is only 10 words long (in English anyway) and only addresses one issue, but it's perfectly valid.



Blessings!


- Josiah



.

Ecumenical? Is that why the Nicene Creed kicked off the Filioque controversy?

 

[Lamb]

Again, Lutherquest. Objective justification was a huge debate point amongst confessional Lutherans with about a 50-50 split, so even the Lutheran denomination couldn't fully agree.

I have only seen a couple of pastors who don't believe in OJ on Lutherquest, and they've gone onto other denominations since then.

No one said we shouldn't go to Scripture, it's just that the Scriptures give a much fuller revelation of God.
Neither should we cease using the Creeds.

Of course scripture gives a fuller revelation of God.

 

[Albion]

The ancient "ecumenical" creeds are sometimes found in the singular ("I believe") and sometimes in the plural ("we believe") and BOTH are equally okay. They are statements of faith.

Ecumenical? Is that why the Nicene Creed kicked off the Filioque controversy?

It was more than 600 years later that the Latin church added the filioque to its version of the Creed, so I wouldn't exactly call that an event which "kicked off" the controversy.

That aside, your contention would seem to be that this addition to the Creed resulted in promoting disunion among the churches rather than the opposite. But what you have been arguing until now has been that the original Creeds were too limited, not adequate in affirming the Gospel.

 

[George]

The Apostle's leaves out His Incarnation, while the Nicene leaves out His death.

They both are good but if push came to shove I'd side with the Apostle's.
Is there the Gospel without the death?

I'm confused on how you can say that when the Nicene clearly mentions His Death.

 

[prism]

It was more than 600 years later that the Latin church added the filioque to its version of the Creed, so I wouldn't exactly call that an event which "kicked off" the controversy.

That aside, your contention would seem to be that this addition to the Creed resulted in promoting disunion among the churches rather than the opposite. But what you have been arguing until now has been that the original Creeds were too limited, not adequate in affirming the Gospel.

The Creeds being a compilation of Scripture went beyond Scripture by inserting ...

'We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father. Who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified. ''

I'm not taking sides as to who was right, but it seemed to sow the seeds of a later split between East and West. (So much for ecumenical).

Then again Jesus was not much of an ecumenicist.

Matthew 10:34-39 ESV
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. [35] For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. [36] And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. [37] Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. [38] And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. [39] Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.


John 6:64-66 ESV
But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) [65] And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." [66] After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.

 

[prism]

I'm confused on how you can say that when the Nicene clearly mentions His Death.

You are a good Berean!

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day

 

[George]

You are a good Berean!

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day

What are you getting at?

 

[Albion]

It must be Section Two of the claim that there is "no mention of the Scriptures in the Creeds" although "according to the Scriptures" is part of the Nicene Creed.

 

[prism]

What are you getting at?

Simple. The 'Death of Christ' is mentioned in the Nicene Creed. And the Bereans are commended/ in Acts 17:11.

 

[prism]

It must be Section Two of the claim that there is "no mention of the Scriptures in the Creeds" although "according to the Scriptures" is part of the Nicene Creed.

Third time. Although the word 'Scriptures' are in the Creed, it does not describe them as 'God's Word in written form' or something to that effect.

 

[Albion]

Although the word 'Scriptures' are in the Creed, it does not describe them as 'God's Word in written form' or something to that effect.

Presumably, anyone who is testifying to his belief in the Creed's various articles of faith doesn't simultaneously need to explain them to God and the other parishioners.

For example, here would be the wedding vows as I imagine you would have written them--

"I take thee to be my wedded wife to the exclusion of every other woman, or man for that matter, to have and hold, take to parties, and 'you know,' from this day or evening forward, for better or worse or if things simply become stale for a while, because that can be frustrating and hurt the relationship, till death do us part here in this physical realm which is not the same as the spirit world which was also created by Almighty God himself according to the book of Genesis which I accept as true, not somebody else or as a result of the impersonal workings of any one of the theories of evolution that some do falsely teach, having made science superior to revelation...."

 

[Lamb]

Third time. Although the word 'Scriptures' are in the Creed, it does not describe them as 'God's Word in written form' or something to that effect.

Believers who are properly catechized would know it though.

 

[prism]

Presumably, anyone who is testifying to his belief in the Creed's various articles of faith doesn't simultaneously need to explain them to God and the other parishioners.

For example, here would be the wedding vows as I imagine you would have written them--

"I take thee to be my wedded wife to the exclusion of every other woman, or man for that matter, to have and hold, take to parties, and 'you know,' from this day or evening forward, for better or worse or if things simply become stale for a while, because that can be frustrating and hurt the relationship, till death do us part here in this physical realm which is not the same as the spirit world which was also created by Almighty God himself according to the book of Genesis which I accept as true, not somebody else or as a result of the impersonal workings of any one of the theories of evolution that some do falsely teach, having made science superior to revelation...."

Your imagination, not mine.

 

[prism]

Believers who are properly catechized would know it though.

I guess fewer and fewer are being properly catechized...

Fewer in U.S. Now See Bible as Literal Word of God

Coinciding with a general decline in religiosity in the U.S., a record-low 20% of Americans now say they believe the Bible is literally true.

news.gallup.com

 

[Lamb]

I guess fewer and fewer are being properly catechized...

Fewer in U.S. Now See Bible as Literal Word of God

Coinciding with a general decline in religiosity in the U.S., a record-low 20% of Americans now say they believe the Bible is literally true.

news.gallup.com

Doesn't scripture warn this will happen though?