Are the "creeds" Truth ?

[Alithis]

Some denominations place greater stock in the creeds then others .

are the creeds truth ? .. to a degree of course they are , in that they are based upon the truth .

Is the holy spirit inspired scripture (for the sake of not being split into ambiguity this refers to the 66 books of our library of inspired scripture) absolute and infallible truth ? - I say YES

are the creeds absolute and infallible truth - ? I say No, as that would be to say those who penned them are infallible and that places them equal to the God head who alone is infallible .

and from this viewpoint it can only lead to error when the creeds are allowed to dictate how the word of God can be interpreted and what can be seen as making that which is "added" acceptable . ie using the "creeds" to establish what is truth .. placing the fallible as an authority over the infallible .

this is never a wise thing to do imo.

 

[Lamb]

What specifically do you disagree on the creeds?

 

[Josiah]

The Ecumenical Creeds are usually embraced as norma normata (rather than norma normans), but yes - they are true. A tiny minority of Christians in the past couple of centuries have rejected them (Mormons, JW's, Christian Scientists for example) since of course these groups stand apart from historic, orthodox, ecumenical, traditional Christianity.

 

[TurtleHare]

I think the creeds are an exposition of our faith and yes they are true.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If the creeds are true then they are as true as inspired true statements are. Truth is true no matter the source.

 

[Alithis]

I do not disagree with the creeds .i just acknowledge that they are not a perfect infallible interpretation and should not be used as such to validate denominational doctrinal stances ,but that every stance must have its full validation in the direct unambiguous word of God .
Not the forced piecing together of "bits" of sciptures and then stating it is valid because the creeds say so.

if a stance is not in the word of God then its not in the Word of god using the creeds to impose a stance that is in contrast to the Whole word of God is not an acceptable source of authority . we must never impose tradition teaching of ANY kind .

 

[Lamb]

If you don't disagree with the creeds then I guess I don't understand the fuss?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I reckon the fuss comes from a desire to stake out one's territory. "The truth fits neatly in this little plot of theological territory and nowhere else" says the bible alone chap while his interlocutor says "There is truth over here too and you agree that it is true truth so why pretend that it all has to be in the little plot of theological territory?"

 

[Alithis]

what fuss? you perceive a fuss ?

i just pointing out that the difference between the foundation of the word of god . and a foundation between denominational doctrines that are built between the word of god and the doctrine ..like a secondary layer of man made foundation -and how it is not wise to use this secondary man mad layer of foundation as the sole foundation upon which to establish a doctrine .

it creates a buffer zone that allows for falsehood .. ie -the word of god does not say somthing . but our own creed foundation does .. so it must be true ..
no the very fact it is a man made creed means it can be erroneous no matter how right it appears to be it wil never have the same perfection as the solid infallible word of God .

 

[Tigger]

The ecumenical creeds are just a summary of our churchs' biblical beliefs. I like the fact that we as a congregation resight the Apostles creed at every worship service. It's so clearly written that if a visitor attended our service they would at least have an idea of our biblical stances.

 

[Alithis]

interesting .. so you rebuild this man made foundation by chanting it -why ?

is it better then the actual word of god some how ? it is not ,being that it is man made imperfect and thus open to being erroneous, has been changed and rectified in the past i understand and can be ( and probably wil be )changed and rectified in the future -meaning it is not a stable constant .. and has already been changed by 100's of denominations interpretations of it over the centuries ...

 

[Tigger]

interesting .. so you rebuild this man made foundation by chanting it -why ?

is it better then the actual word of god some how ? it is not ,being that it is man made imperfect and thus open to being erroneous, has been changed and rectified in the past i understand and can be ( and probably wil be )changed and rectified in the future -meaning it is not a stable constant .. and has already been changed by 100's of denominations interpretations of it over the centuries ...

You aren't using the actual word of God yourself. You are using a translation that's been paraphrased for readability.

 

[Alithis]

A distracting point ..nothing more

 

[MoreCoffee]

The ecumenical creeds are just a summary of our churchs' biblical beliefs. I like the fact that we as a congregation resight the Apostles creed at every worship service. It's so clearly written that if a visitor attended our service they would at least have an idea of our biblical stances.

"I believe in ... the communion of the saints" is biblical if one accepts 73 books as canonical holy scripture but I have doubts if it is when one has only 66.

 

[Tigger]

A distracting point ..nothing more

"I believe in ... the communion of the saints" is biblical if one accepts 73 books as canonical holy scripture but I have doubts if it is when one has only 66.

Since you two are in an argumentative mood, why don't you discus this among each other?

 

[Alithis]

Since you two are in an argumentative mood, why don't you discus this among each other?

where do you come up with such a thing ? i was replying to lammach and you I have not engaged any other poster then yourself -if i do, i wil quote them . what you just did was attempt to stir .and what another did was to make personal digs at me .but i dont seek a popularity contest .things i say goad and shake many man made traditions ..

i find it interesting that the word states that the lord wil shake everything that can be shaken so that only that which cannot be shaken will remain .we must all be ready for shaking in our lives ,for so any things that are carnal in nature are soon to be exposed ,for the lord Jesus to only head of HIS church has no place for it in HIS church . we are soon to find that we will not be able to hold on to traditions and to Christ JEsus himself we wil soon need to grasp fully to one or to fall with the other .for he will thresh and that which is chaff wil be blown away gathered up and burned in the fire -as surely as his word is True and he is faithful to it .

 

[tango]

Some denominations place greater stock in the creeds then others .

are the creeds truth ? .. to a degree of course they are , in that they are based upon the truth .

Is the holy spirit inspired scripture (for the sake of not being split into ambiguity this refers to the 66 books of our library of inspired scripture) absolute and infallible truth ? - I say YES

are the creeds absolute and infallible truth - ? I say No, as that would be to say those who penned them are infallible and that places them equal to the God head who alone is infallible .

and from this viewpoint it can only lead to error when the creeds are allowed to dictate how the word of God can be interpreted and what can be seen as making that which is "added" acceptable . ie using the "creeds" to establish what is truth .. placing the fallible as an authority over the infallible .

this is never a wise thing to do imo.

I always saw the creeds as effectively a condensed summary of what the Scriptures teach that represent the core of what the church in question believes.

In that light it essentially means that if you can recite the creed and mean it, you believe the same as the church believes on the things that matter. If you can't accept something that is in one of the creeds the church recites, effectively "you are not one of us".

Put another way, if the creed in question says "I believe Jesus Christ was born of a virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit, died for the sins of mankind, and rose again on the third day" and nothing else, then if you believe that you can be regarded as a Christian in the eyes of the church, and if you do not then you cannot. I don't have a problem with creeds (I see them largely like a church's statement of faith) but do have a problem when they become too exclusive. I decided not to attend one church because their statement of faith explicitly listed a pre-tribulation rapture and that the gifts of the Spirit have ceased; another church elevated their view on alcohol (in their case the view was that no Christian should drink alcohol, buy or sell alcohol etc) to their statement of faith. Because I couldn't accept the statements of faith of the churches in question I couldn't see how I could ever be a member, and if I couldn't ever be a member there was no point me attending.

In fairness, if you don't believe that Jesus Christ died for the sins of mankind and rose again on the third day it wouldn't be at all unreasonable to question whether you were really a Christian at all. But if you and I have different views on whether we should take communion before the collection, or whether we should wear our Sunday best to church or come just as we are, or whether we should sing traditional hymns or contemporary songs, that's a secondary matter and we don't need to break fellowship over it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

[MENTION=62]tango[/MENTION], are the creeds truth? Like the topic title asks?

I get a bit concerned - not with you specifically tango - when people say they believe every world in the bible and then have hesitancy about the creeds that they happily acknowledge as true yet treat as if they were not true ... it just looks kind or weirdly inconsistent to say "I believe every word in the bible" (presumably a 66 book bible) and then say "but I have reservations about acknowledging the creeds as truth because if I say the creeds are truth it will somehow diminish the bible"

 

[tango]

[MENTION=62]tango[/MENTION], are the creeds truth? Like the topic title asks?

I get a bit concerned - not with you specifically tango - when people say they believe every world in the bible and then have hesitancy about the creeds that they happily acknowledge as true yet treat as if they were not true ... it just looks kind or weirdly inconsistent to say "I believe every word in the bible" (presumably a 66 book bible) and then say "but I have reservations about acknowledging the creeds as truth because if I say the creeds are truth it will somehow diminish the bible"

I'd be reluctant to give a universal answer relating to "the creeds" without an exhaustive list of them. The last thing I'd want to do is say "the creeds are truth" only for someone to come up with a creed I couldn't accept as truth.

If any particular creed is little more than a summary of relevant parts of Scripture then I'd struggle to see how anyone could argue that it wasn't true, other than to point out why it wasn't a fair summary or that it changed the meaning even if only very subtly.

If the Bible was inspired by God and written down by mortal men it's still true despite being written down by fallible people. It's hard to see how the truth becomes less true if it is accurately summarised, any more than it becomes less true when translated from Hebrew to English.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'd be reluctant to give a universal answer relating to "the creeds" without an exhaustive list of them. The last thing I'd want to do is say "the creeds are truth" only for someone to come up with a creed I couldn't accept as truth.

If any particular creed is little more than a summary of relevant parts of Scripture then I'd struggle to see how anyone could argue that it wasn't true, other than to point out why it wasn't a fair summary or that it changed the meaning even if only very subtly.

If the Bible was inspired by God and written down by mortal men it's still true despite being written down by fallible people. It's hard to see how the truth becomes less true if it is accurately summarised, any more than it becomes less true when translated from Hebrew to English.

I'm thinking of the Ecumenical Creeds, like the Nicene Creed, the formula of Chalcedon, and for Catholic Christians the Apostles' Creed and perhaps the Athanasian Creed.