APOSTLE'S or NICENE Creed?

[prism]

Very amusing. You change your claim after what you wrote was refuted.

So now, let's move along to your next allegation....


1. Well, no one said that the creeds are "sacrosanct."

2. They of course were written by men.

3. And they quite obviously are not considered "untouchable" since the original wording has been modified in some denominations and there are differences from denomination to denomination. So, no "untouchable" quality there.

Glad you were amused. I hope I didn't say that 'the Creeds were written by men' rather that they were 'compiled' by men, i.e. piecing together bits and pieces of what was 'inspired by God'.

 

[Lamb]

Glad you were amused. I hope I didn't say that 'the Creeds were written by men' rather that they were 'compiled' by men, i.e. piecing together bits and pieces of what was 'inspired by God'.

So what exactly is the problem you have with the creeds? I suppose I need it more spelled out for me to understand.

 

[Messy]

So what exactly is the problem you have with the creeds? I suppose I need it more spelled out for me to understand.

It doesn't mention that the Bible is inspired by God. So I'd say just use the song version. They may have had problems with it too, that it was too short, so they changed it.

 

[Albion]

It doesn't mention that the Bible is inspired by God. So I'd say just use the song version. They may have had problems with it too, that it was too short, so they changed it.

No, that's merely one objection to the answers that the forum has given to his seemingly innocent question about which Creed we prefer.

No matter what we reply, it allows him a chance to start a fight, and then to keep it going by changing his objections, one after another, in response to whatever we've explained.

As needed, he alters or amends his topic, if slightly, but often illogically, so as to keep the ''back and forth'' going. And we jump through those hoops as was the intention from the start.

If you haven't noticed, this is a well-established pattern.

 

[Messy]

The old creed was just professing your faith at baptism. If these creeds are not extensive enough, they have a whole bunch more. I'm quite sure one of em says the Bible is God's inspired Word.

Belijdenisgeschriften

holyhome.nl helpt u met bijbelstudie en het investeren in geestelijke rijkdom en zingeving

holyhome.nl

1. The Apostles' Creed also called the Twelve Articles of the common, no doubt, Christian faith. The oldest form of this confession probably dates from about 100 AD. It originated from a formula by which a person who was baptized professed his faith in the ancient Christian church. It came into being gradually, and was therefore not drawn up by the apostles, but represents the main sum of the apostolic doctrine, as it was proclaimed by Christ and by the apostles at his behest. 2. The Nicene Creed This confession was established at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 and that of Constantinople in AD 381 . It was necessary because at that time dangerous errors were being preached about the Son of God and about the Holy Spirit. 3. The Athanasian Confession This confession originated between 435 and about 500 AD. It is named after a pastor of the Church of Alexandria. She speaks at length about the divine Trinity, because errors were then proclaimed about that as well. So these are the three confessions from the ancient Christian Church. The three later confessions are: 1. The Dutch Confession of Faith It was drawn up by the evangelizer Guido de Bres from the southern Netherlands at that time. He published it in 1561, in defense of the Reformed doctrine against the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church of that day and against the doctrine of the Anabaptists. 2.The Heidelberg Catechism (1563) which was drawn up in Germany at the same time, also to explain the Reformed doctrine against all kinds of errors. This Confession has the question-and-answer form, because it was especially drawn up to teach the youth in the Reformed doctrine. 3. The Canons of Dordt or: The Five Articles against the Remonstrants. Called "Doctrinal Rules" because they were drawn up by the Synod of the Dutch Churches held in Dordrecht in 1618/19. In this confession, important parts of the biblical doctrine are set out against the errors of the then Remonstrants.

 

[Messy]

No, that's merely one objection to the answers that the forum has given to his seemingly innocent question about which Creed we prefer.

No matter what we reply, it allows him a chance to start a fight, and then to keep it going by changing his objections, one after another, in response to whatever we've explained.

As needed, he alters or amends his topic, if slightly, but often illogically, so as to keep the ''back and forth'' going. And we jump through those hoops as was the intention from the start.

If you haven't noticed, this is a well-established pattern.

He was just asking a question. I think it's interesting. It destracts me, so I won't be tempted to write one more word in the faith and justify the ungodly thread. What a waste of time that was.

 

[Albion]

The old creed was just professing your faith at baptism. If these creeds are not extensive enough, they have a whole bunch more. I'm quite sure one of em says the Bible is God's inspired Word.

Of course, but these (Apostles' and Nicene) are the two that are universal and are among the oldest, so for those reasons, they have a certain understandable prominence. There's nothing wrong with either one, not even if a lot of shade has been thrown at them on this thread.

 

[MoreCoffee]

We use the Nicene creed for about 1/2 of the liturgical year and the Apostles creed for the other half. But we used to use the Nicene creed exclusively. It depends on the local priest and the parishioners' preferences.

 

[prism]

So what exactly is the problem you have with the creeds? I suppose I need it more spelled out for me to understand.

Thank you for asking, it sure beats assuming and putting words in peoples mouths.
I don't believe I have a problem with the Creeds, they are fine as far as they go. I'm just surprised that since they are based on Scripture there is no mention of the Scriptures, but like someone has said, that wasn't a battle in the Early Church.

 

[Albion]

Thank you for asking, it sure beats assuming and putting words in peoples mouths.
I don't believe I have a problem with the Creeds, they are fine as far as they go. I'm just surprised that since they are based on Scripture there is no mention of the Scriptures, but like someone has said, that wasn't a battle in the Early Church.

You need to get your alibis straight if your 'damage control' effort is to succeed.

That's the third time you've complained that there is no mention of the Scriptures in the Creeds, when it's right there and you have already been pointed to it.

"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end."

And on this one thread you have also criticized the Creeds for the reason that they allegedly are treated as something "sacrosanct" AND because they do not state that their contents are based on divine revelation ("I wonder why no mention of God's Word being truly from God in the Creeds?")







.

 

[prism]

You need to get your alibis straight if your 'damage control' effort is to succeed.

That's the third time you've complained that there is no mention of the Scriptures in the Creeds, when it's right there and you have already been pointed to it.

"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end."

And on this one thread you have also criticized the Creeds for the reason that they allegedly are treated as something "sacrosanct" AND because they do not state that their contents are based on divine revelation ("I wonder why no mention of God's Word being truly from God in the Creeds?")







.

Sorry, but that is a direct quote from Scripture (1Cor 15:3). There is no confession regarding the Scriptures.
I mentioned that the other time.

 

[Messy]

-

 

[Albion]

Sorry, but that is a direct quote from Scripture (1Cor 15:3). There is no confession regarding the Scriptures.
I mentioned that the other time.

Your claim was that there was no mention of the Scriptures. That's it, not something about the Scriptures that you think should have been included in the Creeds.

 

[Messy]

Your claim was that there was no mention of the Scriptures. That's it, not something about the Scriptures that you think should have been included in the Creeds.

No he said that in #14, but I can't quote 2 things.

 

[prism]

We use the Nicene creed for about 1/2 of the liturgical year and the Apostles creed for the other half. But we used to use the Nicene creed exclusively. It depends on the local priest and the parishioners' preferences.

Thank you. Do you have a preference?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Thank you. Do you have a preference?

Apostle's creed is shorter, that is useful.

 

[Lamb]

Thank you for asking, it sure beats assuming and putting words in peoples mouths.
I don't believe I have a problem with the Creeds, they are fine as far as they go. I'm just surprised that since they are based on Scripture there is no mention of the Scriptures, but like someone has said, that wasn't a battle in the Early Church.

And again, I point to you the reason of WHY (historically) they were written, and it wouldn't have been necessary for them to make a kind of statement as you're suggesting is necessary (for you). The creeds were not written to attract nonbelievers, so why would it be necessary to make the kind of statement you're wanting?

 

[Josiah]

We use the Nicene creed for about 1/2 of the liturgical year and the Apostles creed for the other half. But we used to use the Nicene creed exclusively. It depends on the local priest and the parishioners' preferences.

There's no LAW about this in Lutheranism. However, the Apostle's Creed is associated with Baptism and the Nicene with the Eucharist, SO generally when it's a "full service" (Mass) - includes Communion - the Nicene is used, and when it's only the Service of the Word, the Apostle's Creed is used. But again, there's no mandate so parishes are free to use whichever they desire. But one or the other is always used.



.

 

[Albion]

It's an interesting question. In our churches, the option is explicitly given to the priest to use either one of these Creeds, although the Apostles' Creed is usually the choice for Morning Prayer and the Nicene for Holy Communion services.

 

[prism]

And again, I point to you the reason of WHY (historically) they were written, and it wouldn't have been necessary for them to make a kind of statement as you're suggesting is necessary (for you). The creeds were not written to attract nonbelievers, so why would it be necessary to make the kind of statement you're wanting?

If you're familiar with recent Church history, the early 20th century saw a violent attack on the inspiration of the Scriptures. It had nothing to do with attracting non believers but rather it sowed doubt in the minds of those weak in the faith.