Why the Nicene Creed should be REJECTED as a litmus test for Christianity.

[Diakoneo]

The following is part of my defense of Christianity to be presented to Erwin regarding the "definition" of "Christian".

The Nicene Creed should be rejected as the "SOLE" basis for defining "Christian":

Here is the rule:
6.2 We use the contents of the Nicene Creed as a set of criteria to define who can post in the "Christians Only" forums. The Nicene Creed has been used for millenia by the church to define the boundaries of orthodoxy within Christianity. The contents of the Nicene Creed conveniently summarizes the main doctrines found in the Bible that are held by Evangelical Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christianity. The Nicene Creed itself has been used since the beginning of church history to battle heresy. It summarizes issues like the Trinitarian nature of God, the Divinity of Christ and other basic doctrines of mainstream Christianity that are agreed upon by all major Christian denominations and churches. We do not expect members who want to post in the "Christians Only" forums to accept or affirm the actual Creed - we expect them to agree to its contents only which are based on the Bible.

Here is Argument "a"

a) While the Nicene creed may be sufficient to "define the boundaries of orthodoxy within Christianity" it is not sufficient to define what makes a person "Christian".

Here is the Creed (copied from the "rules" page):

6.3 The Nicene Creed (with scriptural references as it is based on the Bible)


We believe in (Romans 10: 8-10; 1 John 4: 15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6: 4, Ephesians 4: 6)
Father (Matthew 6: 9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6: 3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1: 1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1: 15-16)

And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11: 17)
Son of God, (Mathew 14: 33; 16: 16)
Only-Begotten, (John 1: 18; 3: 16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1: 2)
Light from Light; (Psalm 27: 1; John 8: 12; Matthew 17: 2,5)
True God from True God; (John 17: 1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1: 18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10: 30)
through whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1: 1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1 Timothy 2: 4-5)
came down from heaven, (John 6: 33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary (Luke 1: 35)
and became man. (John 1: 14)
And He was crucified for us (Mark 15: 25; 1 Corinthians 15: 3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19: 6)
suffered, (Mark 8: 31)
and was buried. (Luke 23: 53; 1 Corinthians 15: 4)
And on the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures, (Luke 24: 1 1 Corinthians 15: 4)
and ascended into heaven, (Luke 24: 51; Acts 1: 10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father; (Mark 16: 19; Acts 7: 55)
and He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24: 27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10: 42; 2 Timothy 4: 1)
Whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1: 11)

And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14: 26)
Lord, (Acts 5: 3-4)
Giver of Life, (Genesis 1: 2)
Who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; (John 15: 26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3: 16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19: 20; Ezekiel 11: 5,13)

In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2: 5,9)
catholic*, (Mark 16: 15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2: 42; Ephesians 2: 19-22)

I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins**. (Ephesians 4: 5; Acts 2: 38)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11: 24; 1 Corinthians 15: 12-49; Hebrews 6: 2; Revelation 20: 5)
and the life in the age to come. (Mark 10: 29-30)

AMEN. (Psalm 106: 48)

(a - cont'd)

The proof that the Nicene Creed does not suffice as a definition for one's "Chritianity" -

There is nothing in the Nicene Creed that is untrue. Nothing in the Creed that the Devil Himself will not acknowledge as true.

James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Therefore, if the Devil Himself would agree to the truth within the Nicene Creed; it can not suffice as a definition of those things which make one a Christian. Truth exists regardless of belief. One does not need to simply believe that there is a "God" - one must come to God, acknowledging sin and begging for remission. To define God is not to trust in God.

The Creed holds no information on the means of salvation. We would hold that there are certain heresies alive today which would prevent a person from being "Saved" - we find these in all sorts of cults and false religions. However, many in these cults and false religions would agree to the truth of the contents of the creed. If then the false agrees that the creed holds truth we see again that the creed itself is insufficient to define a "Christian" - follower of Christ.

-------

Argument to continue

[Bulldog]

The Creed holds no information on the means of salvation. We would hold thatt here are certain heresies alive today which would prevent a person from being "Saved" - we find these in all sorts of cults and false religions. However, many in these cults and false religions would agree to the truth of the contents of the creed. If then the false agrees that the creed holds truth we see again that the creed itself is insufficient to define a "Christian" - follower of Christ.

There is no "litus test" for salvation - the best we can do is look at a person's fruit (works), which we cannot (as far as I know, at least) do through the internet.

[seebs]

("litmus". No "p".)

I don't think it's necessarily true that the Devil would accept the Creed.

Here is the problem: The word "Christian" refers by definition to people who hold certain beliefs. As you rightly note, these beliefs may not guarantee salvation; it is quite likely that the demons hold them.

I do not believe we can define "Christian" so that it excludes all unsaved entities, and still be able to tell who is or is not Christian. The Creed, as you note, gives no information on the means of salvation.

That said: I do not agree that there are any heresies which would prevent a person from being saved. Just as true beliefs cannot guarantee salvation, false beliefs cannot make it impossible.

Romans 8:38-39

Things present or things to come; whatever they are, they cannot stand against the love of God.

[Diakoneo]

There is no "litus test" for salvation - the best we can do is look at a person's fruit (works), which we cannot (as far as I know, at least) do through the internet.

While I, and the Bible, would disagree with you - that's not the point of this thread. The point is - does the Nicene creed suffice as a definition for those who are considered "Christian"? The answer, through argument, is no.

[seebs]

The Nicene Creed suffices just fine, in that it is the basis of membership in the club.

There is no guarantee that all "Christians" are saved:

Matthew 25:44-45

These people were "Christians", and called Christ Lord. Apparently, their words were empty.

[novcncy]

The Nicene Creed suffices just fine, in that it is the basis of membership in the club.

There is no guarantee that all "Christians" are saved:


What seebs said. Are you sure you're not just trying to win an argument with someone?

[Bulldog]

While I, and the Bible, would disagree with you - that's not the point of this thread. The point is - does the Nicene creed suffice as a definition for those who are considered "Christian"? The answer, through argument, is no.

No, but it's the best we've got.

[Diakoneo]

The Nicene Creed suffices just fine, in that it is the basis of membership in the club.

No it does not. Which is the point



There is no guarantee that all "Christians" are saved:

Matthew 25:44-4544 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

These people were "Christians", and called Christ Lord. Apparently, their words were empty.

Exactly!

[novcncy]

Exactly!

So on one hand, you agree (^) that there is no way to weed out the tares from the wheat. It is rightly realized that is impossible for anyone but the Judge.

But on the other hand, you fault the Nicene Creed BECAUSE it does not do the very thing we agree is impossible for man to do!

So I can't help but be confused, and wonder what you're trying to accomplish.

[Crazy Liz]

:scratch: I'm not sure I understand where the argument is intended to lead. Diakoneo, do you think CF should employ a different test in order to assure that only "saved" persons participate in the CO forums?

[seebs]

No it does not. Which is the point

Sure it does. It is a test for Christianity, not for salvation.

Exactly!

Well, then. There are Christians who are not "saved". So the fact that the Creed does not guarantee salvation is not a problem.

[Diakoneo]

Sure it does. It is a test for Christianity, not for salvation.



Well, then. There are Christians who are not "saved". So the fact that the Creed does not guarantee salvation is not a problem.

Christianity in the basest definition refers to those who are saved the two "Christianity - Salvation" are essentially the same.

There are no Christians who are not "saved" although there are many surely who call themselves Christians who actually are not (Christians) - and are not saved. The problem is that the Creed is insufficient to define who "can post in Christian only areas" - because it does not define those who are Christian. It defines (some of the) Orthodox beliefs of Christianity - but not enough. I can agree with the Creed and be anti-Christian at the same time. I can recognize the truth of it and agree that it is true, yet reject its influence. So then, if I fly a non-Christian icon I should be permitted to post in this area because I am willing to say that the Creed is true. And further the non-Christian, who yet affirms the truth of the Creed, can come in here and sow all kinds of discord.

The rule as to who can or cannot post in the "Christians Only" area - needs to be ammended. That is the point.

[seebs]

Christianity in the basest definition refers to those who are saved the two "Christianity - Salvation" are essentially the same.

No. Christianity refers to people who hold Christian beliefs.

There are no Christians who are not "saved" although there are many surely who call themselves Christians who actually are not (Christians) - and are not saved.

This is not how the word is defined. The word "Christian" refers to people who hold specific beliefs. As you note, not all people who hold these beliefs are saved. But the word is defined in terms of beliefs, not in terms of salvation.

The problem is that the Creed is insufficient to define who "can post in Christian only areas" - because it does not define those who are Christian. It defines (some of the) Orthodox beliefs of Christianity - but not enough. I can agree with the Creed and be anti-Christian at the same time. I can recognize the truth of it and agree that it is true, yet reject its influence. So then, if I fly a non-Christian icon I should be permitted to post in this area because I am willing to say that the Creed is true. And further the non-Christian, who yet affirms the truth of the Creed, can come in here and sow all kinds of discord.

The rule as to who can or cannot post in the "Christians Only" area - needs to be ammended. That is the point.

If God ever gets an account here, we can ask Him to sort this out for us. Until then, we must use some other standard. The Creed has worked as a definition of "Christianity" for over one and a half millennia, and I don't think we need to change it.

[Crazy Liz]

I was raised with the idea that Christian = saved. Lifelong Mennonites would get up in church and give a testimony of how they "became a Christian." We were taught that only the "saved" were "true Christians."

So I understand the two different ways the word "Christian" can be used. Arguing over the definition of the word "Christian" is not going to get us anywhere WRT CF posting rules. Here's why:

Assume I agree with Diakoneo that the Nicene Creed is not a proper litmus test for Christianity, and that being "saved" is. Now, tell me who, other than God, can perform the new litmus test?

As I see it, it is impossible for an internet forum to apply a litmus test for salvation, so I can't imagine what kind of test Diakoneo might be intending to propose.

[seebs]

Liz is right; even if we switch to the other usage, it doesn't allow us to create an enforceable rule.

[Diakoneo]

I was raised with the idea that Christian = saved. Lifelong Mennonites would get up in church and give a testimony of how they "became a Christian." We were taught that only the "saved" were "true Christians."

So I understand the two different ways the word "Christian" can be used. Arguing over the definition of the word "Christian" is not going to get us anywhere WRT CF posting rules. Here's why:

Assume I agree with Diakoneo that the Nicene Creed is not a proper litmus test for Christianity, and that being "saved" is. Now, tell me who, other than God, can perform the new litmus test?

As I see it, it is impossible for an internet forum to apply a litmus test for salvation, so I can't imagine what kind of test Diakoneo might be intending to propose.

I'm not proposing any kind of test to determine a person's eternal destiny - because, as has been noted, it is impossible to know individually who is saved, except yourself. However it is not impossible to determine which ... organizations or groups hold to Biblical Christianity - consider that using the creed was the method chosen to do just that (hence the "based on the Bible"). Let the Bible be the judge. Using the Creed alone we find that there are groups which are both considered "Christian" (according to belief in the tenets of the Creed) yet which are also Fire and Ice - Black and White - Complete Opposites. How can this be if the Creed is a sufficient definition of both? That is the crux of the problem - the creed alone is insufficient.

I have no axes to grind personally, it's just a major downfall of the rules IMO.

[Bulldog]

:scratch: I'm not sure I understand where the argument is intended to lead. Diakoneo, do you think CF should employ a different test in order to assure that only "saved" persons participate in the CO forums?

Exactly. I see a cirticism of the current systam being put forth, but I don't see a better alternative being given.

[seebs]

I don't think there are any groups that I would call "complete opposites" that accept the Creed.

But even if there are... Who gets to decide who's in and who's out?

[Joykins]

The creed has the advantage of holding a much less complex and ambiguous standard than the Bible, as a test for club membership.

[seebs]

I'm not proposing any kind of test to determine a person's eternal destiny - because, as has been noted, it is impossible to know individually who is saved, except yourself.

Fair enough.

However it is not impossible to determine which ... organizations or groups hold to Biblical Christianity - consider that using the creed was the method chosen to do just that (hence the "based on the Bible").

Actually, no. The Creed predates what we think of as "the Bible". (Especially over here in Baptist-land, where most of you probably use a Bible with 7 fewer books in it than the one used by the people who worked out the Creed.)

Anyway, who cares about "Biblical" Christianity? This is a site for all Christians, not just some subsets.

My church has no formal doctrine at all. None. My church is not "Christian". That is because a church is not a person, thus has no soul, thus cannot participate in the plan for salvation.

The people who go to my church are, for the most part, Christians. I am not sure whether all of them adhere to the Creed, or whether all of them are saved.

Let the Bible be the judge.

I fully agree. Henceforth, here is what we will do. When a new user sends a PM to team alpha requesting an icon change to "Christian", let us have the message printed out and put on a Bible.

If the Bible utters a single sound, let's interpret it accordingly. Otherwise, we will assume that the Bible has no opinion, and take them at their word.

[mesue]

The Nicene Creed suffices just fine, in that it is the basis of membership in the club.

There is no guarantee that all "Christians" are saved:

Matthew 25:44-4544 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

These people were "Christians", and called Christ Lord. Apparently, their words were empty.
It suffices fine for you, and that's okay, for you. But please don't purport to speak for Christianity, or Baptist's, as a whole.
:scratch: I thought you were an Agnostic Christian? When did you become Baptist?

[Diakoneo]

When it suits him - to post in here. I suppose.

Regardless I appreciate seeb's input - even though I must disregard it.

Who care's about Biblical Christianity?

Um, I do.

[Bulldog]

It suffices fine for you, and that's okay, for you. But please don't purport to speak for Christianity, or Baptist's, as a whole.
:scratch: I thought you were an Agnostic Christian? When did you become Baptist?

Seebs is both an agnostic Christian and a Quaker (or at least attending a Quaker fellowhip), I believe.

[mesue]

When it suits him - to post in here. I suppose.

Regardless I appreciate seeb's input - even though I must disregard it.

Who care's about Biblical Christianity?

Um, I do.
I, too, appreciate seebs comments. It gets me talking to God :D

[Bulldog]

Dikaneo, what do you propose as an alternative?

[Crazy Liz]

It suffices fine for you, and that's okay, for you. But please don't purport to speak for Christianity, or Baptist's, as a whole.
:scratch: I thought you were an Agnostic Christian? When did you become Baptist?
This forum is not just for Baptists. It is for Anabaptists and Quakers, too. Please don't forget us. :bow:

[seebs]

It suffices fine for you, and that's okay, for you. But please don't purport to speak for Christianity, or Baptist's, as a whole.

I don't speak for Baptists. I just speak for me.

But my point is... We don't have any better tests available for who counts as "Christian". For roughly 1500 years, "Christian" has meant "adhering to the contents of the Creed".

If it were up to me, the rule would be "self-identifies as Christian", but I am okay with the Creed. I do not, however, think I would be okay with people imposing more specific requirements, because I do not think any of us have the qualifications or authority to do so.

Do we want the Catholics saying you're only allowed to post in CO forums if your church has a priest with a valid line of apostolic succession back to the early Church? Do we want the Orthodox to be able to rule out erroneous Western heresies like original sin? Do we have the authority to tell people which positions they must hold on questions such as transubstantiation, sola scriptura, predestination?

I am quite happy with a rule that is clear and well-understood which most churches have been using for a very long time.

:scratch: I thought you were an Agnostic Christian? When did you become Baptist?

This is the Baptist/Anabaptist forum, including Mennonites and Quakers. My regular church is called "Twin Cities Friends Meeting". According to Erwin, Quakers and Mennonites belong in this forum.

This has been a question for some time; back when the Congregation forums were "Protestant" and "Catholic", it was very hard to explain where the people who aren't really either should go.

[Richard]

The fact of the matter is ..... this is a private site. Erwin can do anything he wishes to do in regards to "what is a Christian" It's pointless to talk about such a matter, because in the end we just get alot of people that want to revolt and speak out of what Erwin says and does.

Erwin has stated his opinion on this matter many times. A Christian must adhere to the Nicene Creed to be considered one. I don't see the point in this topic.

[Crazy Liz]

The fact of the matter is ..... this is a private site. Erwin can do anything he wishes to do in regards to "what is a Christian" It's pointless to talk about such a matter, because in the end we just get alot of people that want to revolt and speak out of what Erwin says and does.

OK, I'll post virtually the same response to virtually the same comment for the second time today.

I can't tell you how many times I've read this statement, but for the life of me, I can't figure how it contributes to the discussions where I've seen it posted. :scratch: Before you get too upset, let me explain.

First, Erwin has chosen to call CF a "community" and a "ministry." These terms imply something different from a proprietorship in which there is an owner with absolute rule. So an argument based on viewing CF as a proprietorship at least appears to imply some lack of integrity on Erwin's part when he chose to call it a "community" and a "ministry."

Even if CF is a proprietorship, there is nothing wrong with ASKING Erwin to do something, or with DISCUSSING the pros and cons of making such a request. By petitioning Erwin for a change, the members actually acknowledge that Erwin has the power to grant or deny the petition. (Those with a legal background may appreciate the difference in nuance between rights and powers. The rest can just be aware that I used the word "power" intentionally. Those who do - since I understand Erwin is a lawyer - should not feel insulted. Because of the ambiguity of the community/ministry/proprietorship categories, the question of rights is intentionally left aside.)

Erwin has stated his opinion on this matter many times. A Christian must adhere to the Nicene Creed to be considered one. I don't see the point in this topic.

Erwin has been known to respond to requests from members. I don't see the point of trying to squelch discussion by referring to Erwin's powers, which we all acknowledge.

[Richard]

It's the fact that they same disagreement is being brought up time after time after time after time after time.............


That is why I have stated the famous quote "It's Erwin site, he does and is doing as he chooses"

[daveleau]

I see a lot of tearing down, but not much rebuilding in this thread. The Nicene Creed acts as a viable account of the core ideas of Christianity. The inherent problems are that Mormons, JWs and others can claim the Nicene Creed by warping the Scriptures to meet their beliefs. But, this can happen with any contra-Scriptural theology. And any standard can be bent to meet the beliefs of others. What do you guys think will be a sufficient easily identifiable way to make entrance into the CO forums work? Remember that Mormons, JWs and other contra-Scriptural belief systems consider themselves to be Christians.

[Diakoneo]

The inherent problems are that Mormons, JWs and Open Theists can claim the Nicene Creed by warping the Scriptures to meet their beliefs. But, this can happen with any cult theology. And any standard can be bent to meet the beliefs of others. What do you guys think will be a sufficient easily identifiable way to make entrance into the CO forums work? Remember that Mormons, JWs, Universalists and other cults consider themselves to be Christians.

This is exactly the point. If I were a Mormon let's say - I would come in here and post all I want and I could use the rule as my defense. That's the point exactly!

[Diakoneo]

It's the fact that they same disagreement is being brought up time after time after time after time after time.............


That is why I have stated the famous quote "It's Erwin site, he does and is doing as he chooses"


I've personally never seen it brought up before... but that's just me. I'm sure it has been. However, my ignorance of the contents of the past 1,000,000 posts or so shouldn't, IMO, cancel out the intention...

[Richard]

I see a lot of tearing down, but not much rebuilding in this thread. The Nicene Creed acts as a viable account of the core ideas of Christianity. The inherent problems are that Mormons, JWs and Open Theists can claim the Nicene Creed by warping the Scriptures to meet their beliefs. But, this can happen with any cult theology. And any standard can be bent to meet the beliefs of others. What do you guys think will be a sufficient easily identifiable way to make entrance into the CO forums work? Remember that Mormons, JWs, Universalists and other cults consider themselves to be Christians.


I don't ever recall a mormon friend of mine considering themselves Christians...Same with Latter Day Saints.

[arunma]

FYI, LDS are the largest denomination of Mormons.

[Bulldog]

The inherent problems are that Mormons, JWs and Open Theists can claim the Nicene Creed by warping the Scriptures to meet their beliefs.

They can't though, according to this site's intepretation of the creed. I haven't been here for that long, but from what I know, the creed was implemented to keep groups like Mormons, and JW's from posting in the Christian-only forums. (open theists can still post in the christian-only forums, they just can't promote open theism).

[Joykins]

All the Mormons I know have insisted that they are Christians too.

[Richard]

They can't though, according to this site's intepretation of the creed. I haven't been here for that long, but from what I know, the creed was implemented to keep groups like Mormons, and JW's from posting in the Christian-only forums. (open theists can still post in the christian-only forums, they just can't promote open theism).

I don't think it was implemented just because of that, but then again, I could of misread your post ;)

[Bulldog]

I don't think it was implemented just because of that, but then again, I could of misread your post ;)

This is what I understand happened, but then again, I wasn't there.

[JPPT1974]

I see a lot of tearing down, but not much rebuilding in this thread. The Nicene Creed acts as a viable account of the core ideas of Christianity. The inherent problems are that Mormons, JWs and Open Theists can claim the Nicene Creed by warping the Scriptures to meet their beliefs. But, this can happen with any cult theology. And any standard can be bent to meet the beliefs of others. What do you guys think will be a sufficient easily identifiable way to make entrance into the CO forums work? Remember that Mormons, JWs, Universalists and other cults consider themselves to be Christians.

Plus they have Christian principles. But just because they have "Christian" principals doesn't mean that they really believe in Jesus. As they believe in Jesus and another prophet you know. When you are only suppose to believe in Jesus and nobody else.

[seebs]

I see a lot of tearing down, but not much rebuilding in this thread. The Nicene Creed acts as a viable account of the core ideas of Christianity. The inherent problems are that Mormons, JWs and Open Theists can claim the Nicene Creed by warping the Scriptures to meet their beliefs. But, this can happen with any cult theology. And any standard can be bent to meet the beliefs of others. What do you guys think will be a sufficient easily identifiable way to make entrance into the CO forums work? Remember that Mormons, JWs, Universalists and other cults consider themselves to be Christians.

Friend, the forum rules restrict discussion of Open Theism and Universalism, but they grant that both doctrines can be compatible with the Creed.

With that in mind, what exactly are we to make of your reference to fellow Christians as "cults"?

Whether they are right or wrong on these particular beliefs doesn't matter, any more than it matters whether my Catholic fellow Christians are right about the nature of the priesthood, whether my Orthodox fellow Christians are right about Heaven and Hell being the same place (experienced differently), or whether my Protestant fellow Christians are right to believe in sola scriptura.

They are still Christians.

The term "cult" has a specific meaning in modern English, and it is not merely "people I disagree with"; it refers to issues of control and isolation.

[seebs]

This is exactly the point. If I were a Mormon let's say - I would come in here and post all I want and I could use the rule as my defense. That's the point exactly!

Honestly... So what? There are many people already posting in CO forums who are wrong about many things. The Congregation forum rules restrict the scope of debate.

The truth does not need crutches to stand. I have no fear of people who disagree with me.

[seebs]

Plus they have Christian principles. But just because they have "Christian" principals doesn't mean that they really believe in Jesus. As they believe in Jesus and another prophet you know. When you are only suppose to believe in Jesus and nobody else.

Oh, no! And here I was, thinking it was okay for me to think that Isaiah was a prophet.

[seebs]

I don't think it was implemented just because of that, but then again, I could of misread your post ;)

He has it right. The Apostles' Creed was an option for a while, specifically because many Protestant churches use it instead of the Nicene Creed, but the Mormons and JWs both agree with everything in the Apostles' Creed. The more-restrictive rule was specifically adopted to exclude Mormons and JWs, and that is the reason cited for not allowing people who accept the Apostles' Creed but not the Nicene Creed.

[FreeinChrist]

The Creed holds no information on the means of salvation. We would hold that there are certain heresies alive today which would prevent a person from being "Saved" - we find these in all sorts of cults and false religions. However, many in these cults and false religions would agree to the truth of the contents of the creed. If then the false agrees that the creed holds truth we see again that the creed itself is insufficient to define a "Christian" - follower of Christ.



So because the Nicene Creed makes a general statement as what one should beleive, but does not say one must repent, believe , profess Christ to be saved...it is inadequate?

As it is used here to determine what topics are to be discussed, what exactly is the solution you are providing? Are you looking for something more restrictive? Or are you looking for no controls at all?

[Flynmonkie]

Here I always thought the Creed was basically an agreement - "to disagree" on secondary issues. Holding true the basics of Christianity or "Central doctrines". (Anyone -to me that considers someone that is not deviating from Central doctrine a heritic -is considered cultic) IMHO

The rules noted are in fact secondary issues IMHO. I have also been unhappy with the treatment of Christians for whatever their reason that ask questions or want to discuss their thoughts on the matters listed in this rule Crazy Liz noted. I don't complain much around here ;) But this is something I have held issue with before. I see far too many Christians becoming lazy and running people off rather than taking time to learn why people believe they way they do and “honestly” work it out through scripture with respect to another’s learning process. It bugs me. :sigh:

[arunma]

One issue here seems to be that the Nicene Creed doesn't state the basic minimum that is needed for salvation. Actually, it does, because the Bible tells us that whoever confesses Jesus as Lord and believes that God raised him from the dead will be saved (Romans 10:9).

I agree that the Nicene Creed does not fully explain what Christians believe. But let's keep in mind that the Nicene Creed was written to deal with controversies related to Christ's nature. The Council of Nicea met primarily to discuss the Arian controversy. The Arians believed that Christ is a created being, and that he is not equal to God. but even they believed that he is divine. In fact, in all likelihood, the Arians believed in the Trinity (since the word "Trinity" is found in church letters as early as 180 AD). Therefore, the Bishops wrote a creed which stated that Christ was equal to the Father.

Here on CF, we face a similar controversy to the one the Nicene Bishops did. There are "Christians" who disagree with the orthodox understanding of Christ's nature. In order to exclude these people from the Christians-only forums, I think the Nicene Creed couldn't be more of an appropriate litmus test.

[Joykins]

I agree that the Nicene Creed does not fully explain what Christians believe. But let's keep in mind that the Nicene Creed was written to deal with controversies related to Christ's nature. The Council of Nicea met primarily to discuss the Arian controversy. The Arians believed that Christ is a created being, and that he is not equal to God. but even they believed that he is divine. In fact, in all likelihood, the Arians believed in the Trinity (since the word "Trinity" is found in church letters as early as 180 AD). Therefore, the Bishops wrote a creed which stated that Christ was equal to the Father.

The Arians believed that Christ was the son of God and that he was divine, but believed that he was created within time (i.e. not eternally existing) and made of *similar substance* (homoiousia) to God, not the *same substance* of God. Among other things. Arius used to teach the dock workers at Alexandria hymns with these beliefs*. At one point Arianism was the official church position, and several Germanic tribes were converted during this period and remained Arian...

Joy, disgurging History 424 because, well....it was there


* at which point my Roman History prof burst into a chorus of "yo ho ho and a bottle of rum, the Father is not the same as the Son"

[novcncy]

The Arians believed that Christ was the son of God and that he was divine, but believed that he was created within time (i.e. not eternally existing) and made of *similar substance* (homoiousia) to God, not the *same substance* of God. Among other things. Arius used to teach the dock workers at Alexandria hymns with these beliefs*. At one point Arianism was the official church position, and several Germanic tribes were converted during this period and remained Arian...

Joy, disgurging History 424 because, well....it was there


* at which point my Roman History prof burst into a chorus of "yo ho ho and a bottle of rum, the Father is not the same as the Son"

Hey joy, do you have any bibliography on Arius? I'm taking a Christology course, and they just summarily covered Arianism, but I was a little more curious as to the details of the beliefs. If you can help me out, I'd be obliged.

[Philip]

Here I always thought the Creed was basically an agreement - "to disagree" on secondary issues. Holding true the basics of Christianity or "Central doctrines". (Anyone -to me that considers someone that is not deviating from Central doctrine a heritic -is considered cultic) IMHO

This may be the purpose to CF's use of the Symbol, but it certainly was not the use intended by its authors.

One issue here seems to be that the Nicene Creed doesn't state the basic minimum that is needed for salvation.

I think the authors of the Symbol would disagree, but that is a matter for another forum.

[Philip]

At one point Arianism was the official church position,


I would disagree with this. Arianism was, for a time, certainly the official position of the majority bishops appointed by the Empire.

[Joykins]

I would disagree with this. Arianism was, for a time, certainly the official position of the majority bishops appointed by the Empire.

Yeah, what he said.

Sorry, arunma, all I had were the standard history texts of the period. My professor was an expert on St. Jerome and was interested in early Christianity; most of what I know is from my lecture notes.

[Flynmonkie]

This may be the purpose to CF's use of the Symbol, but it certainly was not the use intended by its authors.

Then maybe it should have been?
I am not sure I understand - what do you believe the intent was?

I guess my concern is how can we effectively share the gospel if we continue to "shun" others for misconceptions? If people are so sure they are right about every aspect of their own believe -How can we teach and learn if we isolate others? (For the record I am not one of those people- there are a few things I feel very secure about but my motto is the minute we believe we know it all – is the minute that we have failed)

Christ's attitude was come all - for all. Each one of us is on our own learning path.

I can however agree those issues(and others) seem to produce the most threads that go on forever and ever, get out of hand and confusing - with no conclusion. Especially in a non-controlled setting. Moderating can be a headache! But I am very careful on whom I address as Christian or not. This is probably the most basic teaching biblically there is?

The issue of these topics in rule 6.6 came up once in a thread I had been involved with. I don't necessarily agree with the thoughts behind the beliefs. It is not really the rule bothers me - I am much like Seebs - it is the "lording" over with the rule that concerned me. This is why I came to this forum. (Not that anyone wants me here) In fact that was the response I had been given -

"There are thousands of other boards you can discuss this on - but not here".

I can understand having sub forums to fellowship with other like minded individuals - however I cannot condone telling someone that professes Christ that they are not Christian - because they have a different idea of something that has nothing to do with Salvation. Nor can I condone the manner in which I am witnessing it done. “You go sit in the Non Christian camp or get out” :confused: We have no idea what learning path God has them on- that is not our job. But then again, I have been told that during the many years as a “baby” Christian I did not ever conceptualize that Christ was God in the flesh (God with us) I was not a Christian either? There really is no consistency there.

So I have concluded that simply this is the rule and for whatever reason, issues of this depth cannot be discussed here - or just that no one is capable of handling discussions of this sort? Rules are Rules - So I don't study these topics on this board - it is just simply not allowed. And that is OK. I have taken the invite and found another.

Sometimes I think rules cause us to step on our own toes and defeat the purpose! IMVHCO

[Philip]

I am not sure I understand - what do you believe the intent was?


Understand that I must remain somewhat obtuse as I don't belong in this forum.

Here I always thought the Creed was basically an agreement - "to disagree" on secondary issues. Holding true the basics of Christianity or "Central doctrines". (Anyone -to me that considers someone that is not deviating from Central doctrine a heritic -is considered cultic) IMHO

This may be the purpose to CF's use of the Symbol, but it certainly was not the use intended by its authors.


Then maybe it should have been?


No, it shouldn't have. The Symbol was written for a particular purpose, to exclude certain beliefs from the Church. There was no intent 'to agree to disagree'. The was no concept of a 'secondary issue'. All doctrines, Ecclesiology, Sacramentology, Eschatology, Soteriology, Hamartiology and any other -ology of which you can think, were considered to a doctrine on the Nature of Christ and on the Holy Trinity.


I guess my concern is how can we effectively share the gospel if we continue to "shun" others for misconceptions? If people are so sure they are right about every aspect of their own believe -How can we teach and learn if we isolate others?

These are good questions and may apply to CF's use of the Creed. However, they do not apply to the original intended use of the Creed.


Christ's attitude was come all - for all. Each one of us is on our own learning path.

Indeed. However, part of learning is excluding some statements as false.


I can understand having sub forums to fellowship with other like minded individuals - however I cannot condone telling someone that professes Christ that they are not Christian - because they have a different idea of something that has nothing to do with Salvation.


That is your decision, but it does not reflect the mindset of the authors of the Creed. To them, 'profess Christ' meant something specific, and they defined what that was. Further, as I pointed out before, to the authors of the Creed, there was no idea of a theological concept 'that has nothing to do with Salvation'.

[JPPT1974]

The Arians believed that Christ was the son of God and that he was divine, but believed that he was created within time (i.e. not eternally existing) and made of *similar substance* (homoiousia) to God, not the *same substance* of God. Among other things. Arius used to teach the dock workers at Alexandria hymns with these beliefs*. At one point Arianism was the official church position, and several Germanic tribes were converted during this period and remained Arian...

Joy, disgurging History 424 because, well....it was there


* at which point my Roman History prof burst into a chorus of "yo ho ho and a bottle of rum, the Father is not the same as the Son"

Christ was created way, way before He was born. He was created when Adam and Eve sinned. And God knew that the world was indeed in need of a Savior & Lord.

[seebs]

Christ was created way, way before He was born. He was created when Adam and Eve sinned. And God knew that the world was indeed in need of a Savior & Lord.

Traditional theology holds that Christ is eternal.

John 1:1-5

[Joykins]

Christ was created way, way before He was born. He was created when Adam and Eve sinned. And God knew that the world was indeed in need of a Savior & Lord.

That is not consistent with the Nicene Creed:

And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11: 17)
Son of God, (Mathew 14: 33; 16: 16)
Only-Begotten, (John 1: 18; 3: 16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1: 2)
Light from Light; (Psalm 27: 1; John 8: 12; Matthew 17: 2,5)
True God from True God; (John 17: 1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1: 18)
of one essence with the Father

and was specifically anathemized in the original Nicene Creed:

But those who say: "There was a time when he was not"; and "He was not before he was made"; and "He was made out of nothing", or "He is of another substance" or "essence", or "The Son of God is created", or "changeable", or "alterable" — they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

This is not to cast aspersions on anyone's faith, but to back up Philip's assertion that the creed was indeed created to define particular beliefs about the nature of Christ and the Trinity as heretical--beliefs that are held, whether out of ignorance or convinction, by many Christians throughout history and today.

[Bulldog]

This is not to cast aspersions on anyone's faith, but to back up Philip's assertion that the creed was indeed created to define particular beliefs about the nature of Christ and the Trinity as heretical--beliefs that are held, whether out of ignorance or convinction, by many Christians throughout history and today.

I'll be the second to agree.

[Oxygen]

I will be the Third to concurr with Joykins...

Christ was not made. Begotten, yes. Made, no. He has existed eternally. I think the Nicene Creed is a perfect basic litmus test for orthodox Christian beliefs. Now, whether you hold orthodox Christian beliefs and are saved...well, no Symbolum of the Faith can be a litmus test for that. When the moderators and administrators of this forum use the Nicene Creed, they are doing so to measure a standard of belief, not salvation. It is like C.S. Lewis's book MERE CHRISTIANITY. He wrote it to explain the basics that all Christians regardless of denominatio hold to be true...generally speaking.

To the original poster, what "Litmus-test" would you have us use???

[novcncy]

This is not to cast aspersions on anyone's faith, but to back up Philip's assertion that the creed was indeed created to define particular beliefs about the nature of Christ and the Trinity as heretical--beliefs that are held, whether out of ignorance or convinction, by many Christians throughout history and today.

I'll be the fourth. Seebs put it rather succinctly, but I will elaborate just a bit.

Christ is preexistant, as in, he existed before the universe, and in fact, was instrumental in creating it. John 1:1

Christ is eternal, both past and future. He claimed the eternality of God when he made his statement to the Jews, "Before Abraham was, I AM." The Jews knew what he meant, because they tried to kill him for claiming to be God. Jesus is given the title "Everlasting Father" by Isaiah (9:6), and Micah (5:2) says "whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." These claims, both by the prophets and by Jesus Himself, are of eternality. Whether one believes them or not is another story.

[JPPT1974]

Christ is eternal, both past and future. He claimed the eternality of God when he made his statement to the Jews, "Before Abraham was, I AM." The Jews knew what he meant, because they tried to kill him for claiming to be God. Jesus is given the title "Everlasting Father" by Isaiah (9:6), and Micah (5:2) says "whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." These claims, both by the prophets and by Jesus Himself, are of eternality. Whether one believes them or not is another story.

Christ is for and with us even until the ends of the earth. When it is time for Him to come back and get us all. And that He will be coming back when it is time for the world to end. Good for those who believe and bad for those who don't!

[RhetorTheo]

Aren't the Mormons "Bible believers"? Don't Muslims believe the Bible, too? But they cannot embrace the Nicene Creed.

[seebs]

Aren't the Mormons "Bible believers"? Don't Muslims believe the Bible, too? But they cannot embrace the Nicene Creed.

Most (but not all) Mormons don't accept the Nicene Creed.

I am not as sure about Muslim views of the Bible, although they accept the Torah.

[LovesOfMyLife]

I see a lot of tearing down, but not much rebuilding in this thread. The Nicene Creed acts as a viable account of the core ideas of Christianity. The inherent problems are that Mormons, JWs and others can claim the Nicene Creed by warping the Scriptures to meet their beliefs. But, this can happen with any cult theology. And any standard can be bent to meet the beliefs of others. What do you guys think will be a sufficient easily identifiable way to make entrance into the CO forums work? Remember that Mormons, JWs and other cults consider themselves to be Christians.


And how, pray tell, does this build someone up? How does denigrating someones beliefs make this website conducive to uniting ALL Christians? How are we to assume to know the heart of someone else? How can we even begin to understand the dynamics of other denominations?

IMHO, if someone considers themselves a Christian and they follow the core teaching of Jesus......who am I to say any different? Who are you? Who on earth has that ability? No one.

[FreeinChrist]

Aren't the Mormons "Bible believers"?

Actually, they hedge on their belief in the Bible. They believe the Book of Mormon over the Bible. And who is God in their view?
From Utah Lighthouse Ministry:

The LDS Church teaches that their Heavenly Father was once born as a spirit child of a god and wife who ruled a different world. After maturing as a spirit being he was sent to another world where he was born as a human. There he grew to maturity, married, died, was resurrected, went to heaven, progressed and eventually became the God of our world. He and his resurrected wife continue to have spirit children born to them in their heavenly realm. The Mormon man, accompanied by his wife, who is faithful to his religion, pays his tithe, attends the LDS temple rituals, etc. is hoping to eventually progress to become a god of another world, just like his Heavenly Father did.

I don't see how that fits the Nicene Creed. Or the teaching that Satan and Jesus were brothers. :(

[FreeinChrist]

And how, pray tell, does this build someone up? How does denigrating someones beliefs make this website conducive to uniting ALL Christians? How are we to assume to know the heart of someone else? How can we even begin to understand the dynamics of other denominations?

IMHO, if someone considers themselves a Christian and they follow the core teaching of Jesus......who am I to say any different? Who are you? Who on earth has that ability? No one.

The benefit of having the Bible as a guide is that yes - it helps us determine who is outside the core teaching of Jesus.

[mesue]

... To the original poster, what "Litmus-test" would you have us use???
This?

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

It really isn't all that complicated.

[LovesOfMyLife]

The benefit of having the Bible as a guide is that yes - it helps us determine who is outside the core teaching of Jesus.

Core teaching of Jesus = Love the LORD your God and LOVE your neighbor as yourself. To me, that is the final word....until we get to Heaven. Then, I guess we can all ask Jesus who was "right" and who was "wrong." Or we could all just enjoy that fact that we're in Heaven and in the meantime, while we're on earth we can just LOVE as He instructed.

[daveleau]

Aren't the Mormons "Bible believers"? Don't Muslims believe the Bible, too? But they cannot embrace the Nicene Creed.

Mormons believe and their official teaching is that the Bible has been corrupted through the ages and through the RCC (last bit from author Walter Martin).
Muslims hold the Old Testament as a holy book, but do not obtain theology from it. Their theology comes from the Koran and through their tradition.
Neither accepts the Nicene Creed. Both because they deny that Christ was Lord.

[FreeinChrist]

Core teaching of Jesus = Love the LORD your God and LOVE your neighbor as yourself. To me, that is the final word....until we get to Heaven. Then, I guess we can all ask Jesus who was "right" and who was "wrong." Or we could all just enjoy that fact that we're in Heaven and in the meantime, while we're on earth we can just LOVE as He instructed.

Love the Lord your God - who is the Mormon's God?

As for Core theology, this is important =
Jhn 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Jhn 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Jhn 3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Jhn 3:7 "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'

Jhn 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
IF Mormons beleive in Jesus Christ, how come it is Joseph Smith who is pictured in the clouds with his arms open instead of Christ? I went to the visitor's center of the Mesa Temple - and they pictured Joseph Smith like that.
And note these words of Joseph Smith:
"Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet...When they can get rid of me, the devil will also go." (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 408, 409) [Whole sermon click here.] (http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/smithboastingandpolygamydenial.htm)

- Joseph Smith: founder, prophet, seer, and revelator of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.


I believe this site is doing the right thing about the Nicene Creed.

[LovesOfMyLife]

Mormons worship the same God we do.....

[daveleau]

They deny the Trinity, though. That's the big difference.

[FreeinChrist]

Well, I disagree (with Danny's mom). My God is eternal - forward and backward. He wasn't a man who lived so righteously on another palnet that he became God of this one. Nor was He married and begetting spirit-children from the beginning of the earth. He created. He is the only God of all creation - universe wide, not one of many gods in the universe.

[LovesOfMyLife]

They deny the Trinity, though. That's the big difference.

a lot of Christians have a problem with the Trinity.....denying it doesn't make you any less a Christian, just as affirming it doesn't automatically make you a Christian.

[LovesOfMyLife]

Well, I disagree. My God is eternal - forward and backward. He wasn't a man who lived so righteously on another palnet that he became God of this one. Nor was He married and begetting spirit-children from the beginning of the earth. He created. He is the only God of all creation - universe wide, not one of many gods in the universe.

Perhaps I should clarify : I believe everyone worships the same God, we just believe He manifests Himself differently. I guess that's how I can comfortably believe everyone gets the opportunity to go to Heaven. But that's a different discussion for a different board.

My point is this : anyone who considers himself a Christian, should not be called anything else by any other person on Earth....

[humbleservant86]

Interesting.

[FreeinChrist]

Perhaps I should clarify : I believe everyone worships the same God, we just believe He manifests Himself differently. I guess that's how I can comfortably believe everyone gets the opportunity to go to Heaven. But that's a different discussion for a different board.

My point is this : anyone who considers himself a Christian, should not be called anything else by any other person on Earth....

And I disagree very, very much. With your whole post. And I supported my contention about the Mormons with their own words.

I don't beleive the Jehovah Witnesses, with their belief that Jehovah is Jehovah and God is God...and Jesus was the Archangel Michael before he was born (and is not diety)... are Christians, or that they necessarily believe in the same God.
Or that they have a belief that saves.

[LovesOfMyLife]

And I disagree very, very much. With your whole post. And I supported my contention about the Mormons with their own words.

I don't beleive the Jehovah Witnesses, with their belief that Jehovah is Jehovah and God is God...and Jesus was the Archangel Michael before he was born (and is not diety)... are Christians, or that they necessarily believe in the same God.
Or that they have a belief that saves.

But wouldn't you rather accept them at their word, and maybe be wrong than condemn them and call them names? Maybe not. But I would.

[FreeinChrist]

But wouldn't you rather accept them at their word, and maybe be wrong than condemn them and call them names? Maybe not. But I would.

Please show me where I called anyone names.

And it is not I who will condemn them - it will be God.

I suspect you are not very familiar with the teachings of the LDS church. Did you even read what I quoted? They are an example of why we should "test the spirits" in regards to the teachings of someone.

[mesue]

But wouldn't you rather accept them at their word, and maybe be wrong than condemn them and call them names? Maybe not. But I would.
When you compare "their" word to God's word? No.

[LovesOfMyLife]

Please show me where I called anyone names.

I meant the general "you" but was more pointed towards those who call them a "cult."

And it is not I who will condemn them - it will be God.

I agree, whenever there is condemning to be done, God will do it. Whew, load off my mind. I don't have to do it! So, why waste my time judging people for things I have no control over?

I suspect you are not very familiar with the teachings of the LDS church. Did you even read what I quoted? They are an example of why we should "test the spirits" in regards to the teachings of someone.

I am far more familiar with their teachings than you give me credit for. In fact, my best friend's husband grew up LDS. Question their teachings, if you will, but on a website called "Christian Forums," which touts the motto of "Uniting ALL Christians into One Body" then being exclusionary doesn't make any sense.....If the goal is to truly UNITE ALL Christians then ALL Christians should be welcomed and there should be no fear of name calling or Spiritual headaches for our bretheren who happen to be "Unorthodox."

[LovesOfMyLife]

When you compare "their" word to God's word? No.

God's Word? Where in the Bible (pray tell) does it speak of there being a "Right" way to be a Christian and a "Wrong" way? Where does it tell us we have the right to go about interpreting other peoples' motives, other peoples' Faith? We don't. It's pretty plain and simple.

If you disagree with someones teachings, that is one thing : disagree and do it in a respectful manner. Don't sit there and judge their motives/intentions/etc and call the "cults."

[Annabel Lee]

They can't though, according to this site's intepretation of the creed. I haven't been here for that long, but from what I know, the creed was implemented to keep groups like Mormons, and JW's from posting in the Christian-only forums. (open theists can still post in the christian-only forums, they just can't promote open theism).

Read this thread, at one time a Christian could affirm either the Nicene or the Apostles creed to post in the CO forums.
When it was realized that some Mormons did affirm the Apostles Creed, Christian forums quickly switched to Nicene Creed only.



Forum Rule 6 Amendment: Apostle's Creed removed (http://www.christianforums.com/t75378)

[LovesOfMyLife]

OK people listen up :

"WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH IN HIM SHALL HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE...."

those words were spoken about Jesus. NOTE: there are no caveats about believing a Bible (the Bible didn't exist), or a Creed (nope, no creeds either). Just believe in Jesus. Hm, seems like a fine definition to me. Why can't it be good enough for everyone else???

[RED that's ME]

Closed for Staff Review.