Would you miss them if the creeds were all gone?

[MoreCoffee]

The ancient churches authored and preserved the creeds that are accepted by nearly all Christians; such as the Nicene creed, the apostle's creed, the formula of Chalcedon, and others. Would you miss them if they were all gone?

 

[Messy]

I would definitely miss the song.

 

[Albion]

The ancient churches authored and preserved the creeds that are accepted by nearly all Christians; such as the Nicene creed, the apostle's creed, the formula of Chalcedon, and others. Would you miss them if they were all gone?

I'd miss the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds, sure. But then again, I'd also miss about a hundred other important elements in our religion.

 

[Lamb]

Yes, I would miss them. As we recite them, we go through some very important aspects of what we believe.

 

[Josiah]

Yes.


.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes.


.

One day, brother Josiah, you'll stop doing that little . several lines down from the end of your text!

And yes we would miss them. More dearly than many might think. Without them the floodgates for many ancient heresies are opened, as we see in some religious groups today, such as Jehovah's witnesses, and Latter Day Saints, and Christadelphians (who seem to have shrunk in numbers), and as we used to see in "The Worldwide Church of God" of Herbert W Armstrong.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Read the Creeds, tell me what you see.
How do the Creeds define authority?

 

[Josiah]

Read the Creeds, tell me what you see.
How do the Creeds define authority?

They don't.


.

 

[MoreCoffee]

They don't.


.

Interesting isn't it?

I think that the 16th century protestant confessions of faith always define authority, as if it were important to them, but evidently it wasn't so with the creeds and their writers. Could that be because no one had created a difference in the community about it back then, and that the difference had to await the 'reformation'?

 

[Josiah]

Interesting isn't it?

It is. It means all the foundational, self-serving claims of the RCC are not found in the Creeds. Perhaps because they aren't found in Scripture.

I think that the 16th century protestant confessions of faith always define authority, as if it were important to them, but evidently it wasn't so with the creeds and their writers.

Well, the Anglican and Reformed confessions do. Not the Lutheran ones. The Lutherans ones only mention what is the ultimate norma normans for the arbitration in disputed doctrine, they state that Scripture fills that role for the church as the only infallible tool for such.



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It is. It means all the foundational, self-serving claims of the RCC are not found in the Creeds. Perhaps because they aren't found in Scripture.

How interesting your reply is; to me it means that the Church (Catholic Church that your posts so often denigrate, as the above does) never bothered to define authority precisely because no one had thought to make it matter of debate because all Christians within the Catholic Church of that time accepted the Church's authority as fundamental to being a Christian, which it was and still is.

You have a war to wage, Josiah, a constant combat against this or that, with the Catholic Church being one of this or that. It is wearisome to have nearly every post that I write turned into an occasion for more war. And this is the chief reason why my contributions in CH have declined. So I spend my time elsewhere.

PS: I am writing this at 22:30 Perth time, not especially late, and I am not tired or grumpy at the time of writing, but I came to your post after writing a number of posts in 'elsewhere' to people who manage to avoid the truculent denunciation of "the RCC" which slips into so many of your replies to me. So, cheers Josiah, we can engage another day, your post is the only reply to my posts here today, so, I am finished for the day.

 

[Lanman87]

Being raised in a Southern Baptist home in rural Alabama I can honestly say that I never heard any of the Creeds until I was an adult and encountered "high church" services where the creeds are read on Sunday mornings. I also was only vaguely aware of the Westminster Confession, Augsburg Confession and so on.

So would I miss the creeds if they did not exist. Probably not. The Lord managed to bring me to faith and form my faith without exposure to the Creeds or "high Church" Christianity. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the Creeds and their place in History. I do, even more so after I've studied church history and the theological battles that took place in the early church. I also appreciate the importance and meaning of liturgical services, but I do not believe it is necessary for growing in Grace and Knowledge.

 

[Albion]

Being raised in a Southern Baptist home in rural Alabama I can honestly say that I never heard any of the Creeds until I was an adult and encountered "high church" services where the creeds are read on Sunday mornings. I also was only vaguely aware of the Westminster Confession, Augsburg Confession and so on.

So would I miss the creeds if they did not exist. Probably not. The Lord managed to bring me to faith and form my faith without exposure to the Creeds or "high Church" Christianity. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the Creeds and their place in History. I do, even more so after I've studied church history and the theological battles that took place in the early church. I also appreciate the importance and meaning of liturgical services, but I do not believe it is necessary for growing in Grace and Knowledge.

It sounds like your answer is actually "yes," meaning that you WOULD miss the Creeds at the present time, if perhaps not as keenly as someone who spent much of his life as a member of a denomination that didn't pay much attention to this part of church history.

 

[Josiah]

How interesting your reply is; to me it means that the Church (Catholic Church) never bothered to define authority

But it did. It itself insisting that it itself is THE infallible Authority on Earth. It did that long before Luther was born.

Perhaps you've never read your Catechism and don't own one, but you can google it online. Read #85, 87, 92 and many more.

all Christians within the Catholic Church of that time accepted the (Roman Catholic} Church's authority

Yes, most docilic members of the Roman Catholic Church swallowed the authoritative claims of the Roman Catholic Church for itself. Kind of meaningless. You could say the same thing for docilic members of the LDS and a host of other institutions and organizations.

Of course, while most docilic members of the RCC itself accepted the authoritative claims of the RCC for itself, none outside the RCC did. Or do.



.

 

[Josiah]

You have a war to wage, Josiah, a constant combat against this or that, with the Catholic Church being one of this or that. It is wearisome

@MoreCoffee


Oh, friend, the old "how come you're always pic'n on we pur Catholics" thing. Again. Yet again.

Again, yet again, let's show and prove who is actually more "anti" the church of the other.
Of the MANY times I've tried this, you've always dodged it before but hey I haven't tried it in some time.


Let's see....

1. I regard the Catholic Church as a perfectly valid, legitimate church. Mine in no way more valid or legitimate. Will you say the same of The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod? Yes? No?

2. I consider Catholics to be fully Christian and my full, unseparated, equal brothers and sisters in Christ. Will you say the same of those in the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod? Yes? No?

3. I regard all the Sacraments of the Catholic Church to be fully valid and legitimate. Mine in no way more valid or legitimate. Will you say the same of The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod? Yes? No?

4. I regard all the clergy and ordinations of the Catholic Church to be 100% valid and legitimate. Our clergy in no way more valid or legitimate. Will you say the same of The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod? Yes? No?

5. I've read your Catechism (all 756 pages of it). Have you done the same with the Lutheran Catechism? Yes? No?

6. I have a child attending a Catholic school. Do you have a child attending an LCMS school? Yes? No?

7. I've attended Mass in a Catholic Church literally hundreds of times. Have you attended worship at a Lutheran Church hundreds of times? Even once? Yes? No?

8. I take no offense whatsoever when Catholics abbreviate Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod as LCMS. Do you take no offense whatsoever when Lutherans abbreviate Roman Catholic Church as RCC? Yes? No?

I could go on MANY more, but we both know I don't need to.

You may not admit it, but everyone here at CH knows the reality. So maybe this "stop pic'n on us pur Catholics" thing you throw at me should stop? It's wrong and it's just a dodge. Come on, we all know it.



.

 

[Albion]

I think that the 16th century protestant confessions of faith always define authority, as if it were important to them, but evidently it wasn't so with the creeds and their writers. Could that be because no one had created a difference in the community about it back then, and that the difference had to await the 'reformation'?

What you call "a difference in the community" certainly was an important feature of life at that time in church history. That's the main reason for some of these creeds to exist.

But if we look closely at the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, we don't find church authority addressed, just as many of the most distinctive doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church are missing (Purgatory, Transubstantiation, the invocation of Mary along with her bodily Assumption, etc., and of course, the Papacy, either as infallible or just as the supreme head of the universal church).

 

[prism]

Read the Creeds, tell me what you see.
How do the Creeds define authority?

I'm not sure if they define authority, but they make a nice summary of the faith found in Scripture.

 

[MoreCoffee]

@MoreCoffee


Oh, friend, the old "how come you're always pic'n on we pur Catholics" thing. Again. Yet again.

Again, yet again, let's show and prove who is actually more "anti" the church of the other.
Of the MANY times I've tried this, you've always dodged it before but hey I haven't tried it in some time.


Let's see....

1. I regard the Catholic Church as a perfectly valid, legitimate church. Mine in no way more valid or legitimate. Will you say the same of The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod? Yes? No?

2. I consider Catholics to be fully Christian and my full, unseparated, equal brothers and sisters in Christ. Will you say the same of those in the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod? Yes? No?

3. I regard all the Sacraments of the Catholic Church to be fully valid and legitimate. Mine in no way more valid or legitimate. Will you say the same of The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod? Yes? No?

4. I regard all the clergy and ordinations of the Catholic Church to be 100% valid and legitimate. Our clergy in no way more valid or legitimate. Will you say the same of The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod? Yes? No?

5. I've read your Catechism (all 756 pages of it). Have you done the same with the Lutheran Catechism? Yes? No?

6. I have a child attending a Catholic school. Do you have a child attending an LCMS school? Yes? No?

7. I've attended Mass in a Catholic Church literally hundreds of times. Have you attended worship at a Lutheran Church hundreds of times? Even once? Yes? No?

8. I take no offense whatsoever when Catholics abbreviate Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod as LCMS. Do you take no offense whatsoever when Lutherans abbreviate Roman Catholic Church as RCC? Yes? No?

I could go on MANY more, but we both know I don't need to.

You may not admit it, but everyone here at CH knows the reality. So maybe this "stop pic'n on us pur Catholics" thing you throw at me should stop? It's wrong and it's just a dodge. Come on, we all know it.



.

Okay, you keep your war going and use whatever inflammatory language you like to denigrate Catholicism; but I shall regard your posts as toxic whenever they contain the kind of language you use in the post I objected to. It is not really beneficial to have discussions that turn so quickly into a war against Catholicism. But you do as you please. And I say - it isn't for me.

PS: Please don't refer to me as "friend", it is not welcome in a post that is nothing but an attempt to justify previous denigrations of Catholicism.

 

[MoreCoffee]

What you call "a difference in the community" certainly was an important feature of life at that time in church history. That's the main reason for some of these creeds to exist.

As usual your post misses the point in order to twist the point into something that serves your purposes. The subject was the creeds and also the interesting of a lack of creedal definition of authority as far as scripture and the Church go; specifically the authority of the scriptures as they were received at that time. But your post sidesteps the issue that was raised and launches into something else.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm not sure if they define authority, but they make a nice summary of the faith found in Scripture.

Thank you for replying to what was raised in the original post and subsequent posts. I feel better with a reply that is on topic by someone who appears to have a legitimate point to make.

Marcion of Sinope, disputed the canon, he regarded YHWH as the vengeful god of the old testament, the demiurge, and so chose a diminished canon for scripture consisting only of saint Paul's writings and the gospel of Luke and perhaps Acts of the apostles. But by the time of the Nicene council the matter wasn't in the forefront any more so it is not included as part of the creed. The Church at that time was troubled by another heresy, that of Arius who was a Priest in Cyrenaica in Libya, but he was not there later in life, he moved to Constantinople the capital city of the Roman empire at that time. His heresy was to claim Jesus was God's first creation who in turn created everything else, this was a denial of the deity of Christ, and the Holy Trinity so it caused quite a stir. The creed deals with this issue and hence defines the faith in terms of Theology proper. But the question of scripture authority wasn't raised, nor Church authority, though in the following centuries the rather large Arian sect almost managed to overthrow the Church, but it failed in the end and now we have only sects like Jehovah's witnesses advocating Arian theology.