Forum Rule 6 Amendment: Apostle's Creed removed

[Erwin]

I have had to remove the Apostle's Creed from Forum Rule 6.

This was our previous rule 6:

[noco2]

Members could use either the Nicene Creed OR the Apostle's Creed to define themselves as a Christian for the purposes of posting in our Christian-only forums.

Mormons are expressedly not allowed to post in our Christian-only forums as we believe the Mormon faith and the LDS church are in error and follow heretical doctrines. However, a few of our Mormon members pointed out that their church beliefs do conform to the Apostle's Creed. Specifically, the Apostle's Creed does not address the Trinitarian nature of God and the Divinity of Christ. This could be a loophole for other cult or sect members to post in Christian-only forums.

As a result, I have amended Forum Rule 6 to say the following:

[noco]

Please be aware of our new rule change. Thanks for understanding! :)

[JeffreyLloyd]

:clap:

Thank God for the Nicene Creed!

"We believe..."

[Annabel Lee]

More exclusionary rules?

[seebs]

Just as a point, when I was growing up, as a Lutheran, we used the Apostle's Creed, not the Nicene Creed.

My only concern is that I don't think most people can honestly claim to fully understand the doctrine of the trinity well enough to say for sure whether or not they accept it. We say we accept it because we've been told it's part of the package, but how many people can actually articulate it in their own words without accidentally committing one of the famous heresies of the early church?

(Disclaimer: As a person who attends RSoF meetings, I may be reasonably assumed to be inherently uncomfortable with the very idea of creeds.)

[kiwimac]

Erwin,

As a member of the Quakers I am inherently uncomfortable with this rule both in its original form and in its revised form. Quaker's hold to no creeds considering that they limit God rather than 'safeguard' orthodoxy.

Am I allowed to post in the Christian forums & if not why not?, Do you consider the Quakers heretical / unorthodox?

Kiwimac

[MattMMMan17]

Erwin,
:clap: Stay true to the Faith. And to those of you who argue "but I don't believe that!", well, perhaps it's time to re-evaluate your belief. Thank you Erwin.

[seebs]

The problem is with words, not beliefs, I think. I can't answer questions about the Trinity. I don't understand it. Show me the words of Jesus in the Gospels, and I can tell you that I recognize the speaker, and that the speaker is the One, the Creator, the Alpha and the Omega. But I don't even know what it means to say that He was "fully God, and fully human". How can I agree with, or not agree with, a statement that I'm not even sure means anything in English? I don't speak the language in which the Creed was first written. My ontology doesn't go far enough into the nature of existence to allow me to assert with much confidence that I comprehend that claim. I think I probably believe it; I mean, it's obvious that He was a man, because he lived and died, and it's obvious that He was God, because I recognize Him. But I don't know how to interpret these carefully constructed words.

The words are not the thing. The map is not the territory. The Creed is not a relationship with God.

[Erwin]

If you belong to the Quakers denomination, then you are fine. They are a Protestant denomination, and believe in the Trinity.

[seebs]

While I personally believe in the trinity, there are Quakers who don't. Remember, there's no creed. None. I mean, at all. There is no set of words you have to assent to. That would be trying to limit people to an imperfect human understanding of God, and that's a bad start. :)

[Erwin]

Hey, you're right. :) I didn't realize Quakers were like that, until you mentioned it. There's still the Word of God if nothing else. :)

[seebs]

I retain some concern that there may be people who are really Christians, but whose understanding of the words of the Creed doesn't allow them to offer assent to it, even if they actually believe the right things. I do understand the desire to have a safe haven for Christians; I'm just not sure the narrower definition will help all that much. The grave concern, of course, is deciding whether it's better to exclude some people whose beliefs are "proper" or include some whose beliefs are "improper". Underlying this is the concern about whether or not any of us are in a good position to judge.

I don't envy you the role of having to decide who's who; there is no good way to go about this.

[Erwin]

Mmm... I just want to exclude Unitarians and "Christians" who hold to heretical beliefs. The belief in a Trinitarian God is a foundational doctrine of being a Christian. But let's not turn this into a debate here. :) That's non-negotiable in terms of posting in the Christian-only forums. I do not want erroneous theology posted in those doctrines.

[doofus125]

Hey Erwin, just out of curiosity....I had never heard of or seen the Nicene Creed
before I came here to CF and I was curious where it comes from?

[Oblio]

Thank you Erwin, for standing firm in defense of orthodox Christianity !

[Oblio]

I had never heard of or seen the Nicene Creed
before I came here to CF and I was curious where it comes from?


A short history of the Nicean/Constantinopolitan Creed (http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Doctrine/Nicene-Creed.html)

[emerald Dragon]

It still doesn't say that Mormons are not Christian. I don't see where it says that anything about God being one person with Christ and the Holy Spirit. I can interpret it as they are one in purpose and power.


Try again

[Oblio]

:sigh:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;


Christ is of one essence with the Father, begotten, not made !

[emerald Dragon]

:sigh:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;


Christ is of one essence with the Father, begotten, not made !
This is what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has been trying to say. Christ is one in pupose with God, not one in physical body. They are literally father and son, begotten meaning "to be born." We do not calim that God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost are the same physicall person, but Three physical people, uited in common goals, powers, puposes, and possibly blood.

[Oblio]

Essence != purpose, goals

To say this is to twist the Creed given to us by the Church.

[Serapha]

Mmm... I just want to exclude Unitarians and "Christians" who hold to heretical beliefs. The belief in a Trinitarian God is a foundational doctrine of being a Christian. But let's not turn this into a debate here. :) That's non-negotiable in terms of posting in the Christian-only forums. I do not want erroneous theology posted in those doctrines.

If you belong to the Quakers denomination, then you are fine. They are a Protestant denomination, and believe in the Trinity.
Hi there!

Thanks for retracting on the Society of Friends (Quakers). They are not trinitarian.... not even close.

Personally, I am glad to see the Apostle's Creed removed as a criteria for Christianity on this forum.


~malaka~

[Serapha]

This is what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has been trying to say. Christ is one in pupose with God, not one in physical body. They are literally father and son, begotten meaning "to be born." We do not calim that God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost are the same physicall person, but Three physical people, uited in common goals, powers, puposes, and possibly blood.Hi there!

:wave:

emerald Dragon, that's one of the problems, ... "and possibly blood" ... I am posting a question on the unorthodox forum for your concerns.

~malaka~


I would add, the thread is posted...


http://www.christianforums.com/t75490

~malaka~

[emerald Dragon]

I say blood, becasue no one really knows what the Holy Ghost is. We know that Jesus and God are blood related, as they are Father and Son, but the Holy Ghost-now noone knows what he is.

But as I write, I realize that my previous statement is in error, as Jesus is the only begotten, meaning that the Holy Ghost is created, and not blood related.

[Oblio]

The Holy Spirit is NOT created. He eternally proceeds from the Father.

Here is more on the Essence of God in the Holy Trinity

One essence in three persons. God is one and God is three: the Holy Trinity is a mystery of unity in diversity, and of diversity in unity. Father, Son, and Spirit are ‘one in essence’ (homoousios), yet each is distinguished from the other two by personal characteristics. ‘The divine is indivisible in its divisions (Gregory of Nazianzus, Orations, 31, 14). for the persons are ‘united yet not confused, distinct yet not divided’ (John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith, 1, 8 (P.G. 94, 809A)); ‘both the distinction and the union alike are paradoxical’ (Gregory of Nazianzus, Orations, 25, 17).

From The Orthodox Church - Ware (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_2.htm)

[Shekinahs]

More exclusionary rules?
Yep yep. ^_^

[Stormy]

Erwin: I also see that the Nicene Creed says...

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that some Protestants do not believe that baptism is needed.

[Shekinahs]

Erwin: I also see that the Nicene Creed says...

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that some Protestants do not believe that baptism is needed.
Protestants do not believe it is needed for the forgiveness of sins. From my Protestant background we see baptism as a profession of faith but not a requirement for your sins to be forgiven. Actually that notion is new to me. Until now I didn't know some people felt that if you are not baptized your sins could not be forgiven :o

[Stormy]

Protestants do not believe it is needed for the forgiveness of sins. From my Protestant background we see baptism as a profession of faith but not a requirement for your sins to be forgiven. Actually that notion is new to me. Until now I didn't know some people felt that if you are not baptized your sins could not be forgiven :o

Then by us only using the Nicene Creed, we would lose a lot of our Protestant Christians.

Erwin: It is not working...

[Oblio]

The Nicean Creed is not working ... :scratch: :confused:

[Stormy]

The Nicean Creed is not working ... :scratch: :confused:

NO, that is not want I was trying to say. It works just fine for me. :|

But I do not only consider those who think exactly like me as Christian.

I think that if a person does not believe that baptism is necessary for the forgivenance of sin then he is not a Catholic... but does that also by this board's new standard say that he is not a Christian?

[seebs]

Well, keep in mind, many Friends are trinitarian. The lack of a creed on the topic doesn't mean that individuals may not come to believe that. The Friends have no creed at all, so it's very hard to say what individual Friends believe without asking them personally. (Even then, the impossibility of correctly communicating transcendence with language will cramp your style quite a bit.)

So, for instance, I have no real objections to the Nicene Creed, personally, but other people at my Meeting might not be able to assent to it.

[seebs]

Erwin: I also see that the Nicene Creed says...

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that some Protestants do not believe that baptism is needed.

Traditionally, they can get away with saying it's a spiritual, internal, baptism of faith.

[ZoneChaos]

Plus acknowledging one Baptism is stated to clarify that you don't need multiple Baptisms.. however salvation does not hinge on Baptism...

[Erwin]

Then by us only using the Nicene Creed, we would lose a lot of our Protestant Christians.

Erwin: It is not working...
That's not true. The Nicene Creed applies to ALL Protestant denominations.

The baptism section does not state water baptism at all - it can be construed to mean spiritual baptism.

Like I was saying, having the Apostle's Creed mean we have to allow Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses posting in the Christian-only forums, which is not appropriate. The Apostle's Creed is too inclusive.

[Oblio]

Like I was saying, having the Apostle's Creed mean we have to allow Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses posting in the Christian-only forums, which is not appropriate. The Apostle's Creed is too inclusive.


Bingo :)

The Nicean Creed was affirmed 1500 years ago to put to rest just the sort of heresies that are spread today by certain groups. Closed some loopholes, if you will ;)

[seebs]

The Nicene Creed reflects a fair number of compromises and political realities of the time, too. It's easy for people to forget that the written words we use to describe the truth are not the truth itself.

[Annabel Lee]

If some people are done doing the “Pharisee Happy Dance”, I’d like to state that these exclusionary tactics will in the end hurt everyone.

How many Catholics on this board have ever been told they weren’t Christian? They do it all the time on certain Rapture sites. You all know which one’s I am talking about. Does being called “The Whore of Babylon” or “Mary Worshipping, Statue-kissing Papists” ring a bell?

My sister who is a fundamental Christian asked me to join a Christian board last year. I was turned down because ‘they were only accepting born-again members at this time”. I had never stated I wasn’t “born-again” but I had entered my denomination as Catholic. Wasn’t quite Christian enough for that group.

I see someone suggested that the Society of Friends be excluded too. Isn’t this the same religious group that fought against slavery and helped run the Underground Railroad while other more “accepted” Christian groups were preaching that enslavement of other human beings was biblical?

If you keep kicking people out of the Chrisitan Club, there will soon no one left.

"The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooist brutality, is patently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with the dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes."
- John Adams

[Shekinahs]

Bingo :)

The Nicean Creed was affirmed 1500 years ago to put to rest just the sort of heresies that are spread today by certain groups. Closed some loopholes, if you will ;)
Put together by who and for who? It is not the be all and end all for deciding who is a Christian. :scratch:

~ShekinahMoon~

[Oblio]

Notice that I said affirmed. The Orthodox Catholic Church was an instrument of the Holy Spirit Who worked through the Council of Nicea to affirm those timeless truths set down in the Creed.

It has been the be all and end all for 1500 years of Christianity. If you cannot confess the Creed, you are not a Christian, in the eyes of the Church, and (thankfully) this message board.

[MattMMMan17]

Amen, Oblio.

[seebs]

So, people who don't understand the trinity aren't Christian? When did salvation become a test of comprehension of arcane theology?

And, as noted before, the Nicene Creed contains compromises between competing interpretations.

[Erwin]

If you keep kicking people out of the Chrisitan Club, there will soon no one left.
You will note that this site probably brings together MORE Christian denominations and churches than any other. What other site has Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, and Messianics, and all their sub-denominations, together and existing side-by-side? The Society of Friends is part of Protestantism and is accepted. We are not here to kick people out of the "Christian Club". I have even made rules so that Liberal Christians are accepted.

Rule 6 is there to exclude the churches, cults and sects that claim to be Christian but are based on heresy. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Shekinahs]

Notice that I said affirmed. The Orthodox Catholic Church was an instrument of the Holy Spirit Who worked through the Council of Nicea to affirm those timeless truths set down in the Creed.

It has been the be all and end all for 1500 years of Christianity. If you cannot confess the Creed, you are not a Christian, in the eyes of the Church, and (thankfully) this message board.
Whattttttt?? :eek:

Ok, keep thinking that. :sleep:

I'm Protestant and I do not need the rules of another church to define my Christianity. Nor do I need the creed to justify my salvation with Jesus. And my sins are forgiven because I have confessed them and accepted the blood of Jesus. He is my savior and Lord and his blood was shed for me BEFORE pen hit the paper on the creed. I do not need a 1500 year old creed to determine my relationship with Christ.

I have no fundamental problem with what the creed says. I read it and I'm ok with it but I do not NEED it. I do think it's odd this board uses it to define Christianity simply because I see this board as non denominational. But the importance this creed is having to define Christians on this board is really puzzling my Baptist mind. :scratch:

If this was a Catholic board then yea that would make sense but a general Christian board? At least I thought this was a general board to unite all Christians.

~ShekinahMoon~

[seebs]

I would bet that there's not a person at this site who does not hold at least one belief considered heretical by at least one of the major denominations. Excluding heretics is a tricky business at the best of times.

[Erwin]

At least I thought this was a general board to unite all Christians.
Yes, this is a general board to unite all Christians. But not everyone who calls themselves "Christian" is a Christian. We need a working definition for the purposes of our Christians-only forums. Rather than making the definition based on a single denomination, we base it on a creed that was formed by the Niceaen council to battle heresy at the beginnings of Christianity, before denominations ever came about, before there was what is now known as the Catholic church, the Protestant movement etc. etc. This definition, though it is not perfect, does indeed summarize the doctrines of being a Christian, and applies to Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, and Messianic believers. It also will exclude all heretical branches of Christianity.

Look, not everyone will be happy with this, and all for different reasons. We cannot please everyone. This was our original Rule 6 in any case, so we are just going back to how it was before we added the Apostle's Creed.

[Erwin]

I would bet that there's not a person at this site who does not hold at least one belief considered heretical by at least one of the major denominations. Excluding heretics is a tricky business at the best of times.
We are mainly trying to exclude sect and cult members from Christian-only areas. This should not affect the majority of Christian members.

[ukok]

I believe in the Nicene Creed, and i do agree with your removal of the Apostles Creed and I also understand that it could have been used as a loophole, by those who might abuse the intended fellowship for which CF was created.

[seebs]

Understood. I just worry a bit, because trying to decide which heresies are bad enough for exclusion, and which aren't, is a tricky business. There's certainly a slippery slope lying in wait down that road, although I think the Creed is probably durable enough to keep us from falling too far.

I do know a number of people who think that at least one large "cult" is still being allowed into the Christians-only forums, and who express a great deal of distress over this. I happen to think they're wrong, but I worry about the implications.

That said, as noted, I'm always going to be uncomfortable with any test of "true" Christianity other than asking people if, in their hearts, they consider themselves Christians. I would rather have fellowship with a few non-Christians who mistakenly believe themselves to be part of my faith than risk excluding even one Christian who has trouble with the words used for a given creed.

In the end, any policy can make two kinds of errors; it can mistakenly say "yes", or it can mistakenly say "no". Once, God's followers were very afraid of mistakenly saying "yes", and allowing someone impure or unclean to enter the temple. One day, a man came along who sought out the impure and unclean, and welcomed them into His kingdom; I believe this standard is the one we should follow.

The world is full of people who are full of the Holy Spirit, and essentially incompetent at theology. Doctrines such as the Trinity are beyond the comprehension of most, perhaps all, people. How shall we tell whether someone really understands the Trinity? Is it possible to accept it without understanding it? What does it mean to say that you "accept" a belief, if you don't understand it?

Any line drawn by mortals will have God's people both inside and outside that line.

[Rising Tree]

bah, you'll receive flak regardless of what standard you use. It won't be perfect; that's just the way it is.

[seebs]

This is why I am very skeptical of the benefits of having a standard. Of course, not having a standard gets flak too.

The danger is that this could replace Christianity with a democracy, and traditionally, we're a monarchy with a very very quiet monarch.

[Annabel Lee]

Hi there!

Thanks for retracting on the Society of Friends (Quakers). They are not trinitarian.... not even close.

Erwin didn't retract. The Society of Friends are allowed to post in the Christian-Only area.

Personally, I am glad to see the Apostle's Creed removed as a criteria for Christianity on this forum.

Why?

[seebs]

I'm pretty sure it's not that RSoF are allowed, or not allowed, as a group, but rather, that individual users who accept the Creed are allowed, and those who don't aren't.

[Oblio]

When did salvation become a test of comprehension of arcane theology?


:confused:

What arcane Theology is affirmed in the Nicean Creed ?

Salvation is determined by the Lord, we cannot determine who has obtained it, that is NOT the purpose of the Creed. The purpose is to safeguard those truths which are non-negotiable, that which define the beliefs of all Christians, that which unites us in our faith and worship of the Holy Trinity.

[Tinker Grey]

I would like to second seebs' and Annabel Lee's concerns.

[seebs]

What arcane Theology is affirmed in the Nicean Creed?

I would guess that a solid majority of posters here cannot correctly articulate the doctrine of the Trinity without running afoul of at least one heresy for which people have been burned in the past.

Salvation is determined by the Lord, we cannot determine who has obtained it, that is NOT the purpose of the Creed. The purpose is to safeguard those truths which are non-negotiable, that which define the beliefs of all Christians, that which unites us in our faith and worship of the Holy Trinity.

That was the purpose of the Apostles' Creed, too.

The point is, Christians may easily be confused about such matters of theology, and still be followers of Christ.

[A Taffer]

This is what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has been trying to say. Christ is one in pupose with God, not one in physical body. They are literally father and son, begotten meaning "to be born." We do not calim that God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost are the same physicall person, but Three physical people, uited in common goals, powers, puposes, and possibly blood.This is what the bible says:

KJV 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

In this verse we see that the Word is God.

John 1:1 ¶In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In this verse we see that Jesus is God.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Three different aspects of God but all still God. God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.

I hope this helps. :wave:

[Oblio]

I would guess that a solid majority of posters here cannot correctly articulate the doctrine of the Trinity without running afoul of at least one heresy for which people have been burned in the past.


I was interested in what part of the Creed was arcane, I see nothing there that fits this description. Is there a line that confuses you ?


That was the purpose of the Apostles' Creed, too.


And heresies arose. The N/C Creed was set forth to affirm the beliefs of all who were part of the Apostolic Catholic Church of Christ. Those that did not were heretics.


The point is, Christians may easily be confused about such matters of theology, and still be followers of Christ.

True enough.
The Creed still professes the truth and is set forth to guide those that follow Christ. No one has said if you don't understand the Trinity, or the intricacies of the council of Chalcedon, you are not a Christian.

Do you understand all of the Bible and its theological constructs ? Do you believe in the Bible ?

[Tinker Grey]

No one has said if you don't understand the Trinity, or the intricacies of the council of Chalcedon, you are not a Christian.But the contention is that it would be wrong to affirm something (the Creed's take on the Trinity), when one doesn't understand the Trinity enought to know whether or not the Creed is correct.

[seebs]

I was interested in what part of the Creed was arcane, I see nothing there that fits this description. Is there a line that confuses you ?

I honestly have no idea how to understand the parts that cover the Trinity. I think it's probably right, but words rarely describe God correctly or completely.

I would call the Trinity "arcane". I am not yet convinced that most people, or even many people at all, fully understand it.

And heresies arose. The N/C Creed was set forth to affirm the beliefs of all who were part of the Apostolic Catholic Church of Christ. Those that did not were heretics.[/b]

So, a lot of people with a lot of different beliefs get together and start arguing over which interpretations are which. Have you ever read the alternatives that were under discussion?

Eventually, compromise positions are reached on some issues; others are decided by majority vote. Overall, the entire process consists of theologians defining God as fitting within the boxes described by certain words.

True enough.
The Creed still professes the truth and is set forth to guide those that follow Christ. No one has said if you don't understand the Trinity, or the intricacies of the council of Chalcedon, you are not a Christian.

But if you don't understand the Trinity, how can you meaningfully give assent to a creed which teaches it? You cannot assent to a thing without first understanding it!

[b]Do you understand all of the Bible and its theological constructs ? Do you believe in the Bible ?

I believe that there are a couple of different books (some longer than others) which are called the Bible. What exactly it is, I am still trying to understand. I wouldn't say I "believe in the Bible" the way I "believe in God", certainly.

I don't think it's meaningful to give assent to a thing you don't understand.

When people say they "believe in the Bible", and they've never even read half of it, I don't think what they're saying means anything. Anyone who's never made it through the whole of the Levitical law cannot meaningfully claim to "believe in the Bible", because he's never read the whole Bible. The most he can say is "I believe in the Gospels", or "I believe in the Gospels, most of proverbs, a few selected Psalms, a snippet of Isaiah, and Paul's epistles".

If we were to truly enforce this policy, requiring that only people who genuinely believe in the Trinity as defined by the Nicene Creed post in Christians-only forums, I'd guess that a solid majority of our regular posters would be kicked out; it is simply not realistic to imagine that they understand the doctrine well enough to be described as "believing" it.

[Serapha]

[QUOTE=Erwin]I have had to remove the Apostle's Creed from Forum Rule 6.

This was our previous rule 6:



Hi there!

What about the Community of Christ church members on this forum. They embrace the Nicene Creed yet they hold the book of mormon and D & C as Scripture alongside The Holy Bible.

Are they to be considered as Christians or cults members?


~malaka~

[Erwin]

Please, if people wish to debate the doctrine of Trinity, there are Theological forums to do that.


Hi there!

What about the Community of Christ church members on this forum. They embrace the Nicene Creed yet they hold the book of mormon and D & C as Scripture alongside The Holy Bible.

Are they to be considered as Christians or cults members?

They hold the book of Mormon as Scripture? Are they a subset of the LDS church? In any case, no, they cannot post in the Christian-only forums. The book of Mormon is not part of Scripture. Again, I am not going to debate the reasons - that belongs to the Unorthodox Theological Doctrines forum.

As for the issue of whether Quakers are Trinitarians or not - I did some research online, and it would appear that most of them are.

I can see though that this issue is complicated. I am going to consider this a bit more, and see if I can come up with a better system.

[seebs]

I would point out that the question of what is, or is not, Scripture is totally separate from any of the creeds under discussion. Given the number of bloody wars that have been fought over the various positions held on this issue, I am more than a little wary of it. The Nicene Creed carefully avoids the question of whether or not any given piece of writing is Scripture, and wisely so.

We already have one obvious split (the Apocrypha), but there are other debates to be had; there are a lot of writings which were not accepted into the Bible, which may or may not be true, and may or may not be heretical, but which the Church of the time did not wish to commit to holding as Scripture.

I would recommend staying clear of the question of which books Christians must or must not accept, or what they must believe about Scripture; nearly any belief anyone has ever held on that question is heresy to someone.

[WesleyJohn]

And...to a point, we have to all recognize that this is Erwin's site, and his time, and his energy. To boot, he will be held responsible for how he managed the enormous responsibility of CF. When you are held responsible/accountable for something, you make the decisions. And so, while Erwin is generous and gracious to hear all of our opinions on the subject...at the end of the day (or at the end of the age) it is his decision to make, and he who will be responsible for that decision.... not me, not you, and not the guy down the street! :)

We must remember that CF is not a democracy....it is Brother Erwin's website and ministry...

Peace,

WJ

[JeffreyLloyd]

Very well said.

And...to a point, we have to all recognize that this is Erwin's site, and his time, and his energy. To boot, he will be held responsible for how he managed the enormous responsibility of CF. When you are held responsible/accountable for something, you make the decisions. And so, while Erwin is generous and gracious to hear all of our opinions on the subject...at the end of the day (or at the end of the age) it is his decision to make, and he who will be responsible for that decision.... not me, not you, and not the guy down the street! :)

We must remember that CF is not a democracy....it is Brother Erwin's website and ministry...

Peace,

WJ

[seebs]

I agree that it is Erwin's site; in the end, it's his decision. It is my hope that the leadings of the Spirit which move us to speak will help him make sure it is also God's will.

[JeffreyLloyd]

This was just posted by Oblio in another part of CF:


The Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed as found in Holy Scripture


I 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; (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)
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)

Researched and Compiled by David M. Mastroberte

[bruiser]

This was just posted by Oblio in another part of CF:


The Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed as found in Holy Scripture


I 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; (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)
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)

Researched and Compiled by David M. Mastroberte

This version of the Nicene Creed (which I do not profess to know the history of, but will research) is not in conflict with LDS beliefs, thanks to the word essence. If exclusion is the goal, bury this one deep....

~b

[Oblio]

This version of the Nicene Creed (which I do not profess to know the history of, but will research) is not in conflict with LDS beliefs, thanks to the word essence.


What do you think essence means ?

John 10:30 I and My Father are one.

Is Christ God ? Not a god, but God Himself ?

[Suzannah]

I can't help it...I have to say it: This thread gives new meaning to that old, revered proverb: "Don't bite the hand that feeds you."

Unbelievable. Erwin: Thanks for defending the faith!!!!

[bruiser]

What do you think essence means ?

John 10:30 I and My Father are one.

Is Christ God ? Not a god, but God Himself ?

OK, I've been looking at the different translations, and can see that the word in greek was translated as being, substance, and essence. Which is best, I don't know, and frankly I'm not an expert in that area. However, the word essence confuses the issue, since essence can also mean the intrinsic characteristics or properties that define or identify. That meaning of essence has no problem with the social-trinitarianism LDS theology. See http://www.christianforums.com/t75490

Although this is better discussed in another forum, John 10:30 can mean different things depending upon your point of view.

[seebs]

BTW, it occurs to me that there are splits between Orthodox and other branches on the fine points of the Trinity.

Since the words here can be interpreted many ways, we seem to have a problem.

My concern about the problems of this particular approach to orthodoxy has grown. On contemplation, I am completely unconvinced that more than a handful of our regular readers could correctly state Trinitarian doctrine, or answer detailed questions about it, without committing at least one of the heresies of the early church.

[MattMMMan17]

The Church cannot commit a heresy. It would refute itself in the process.

[seebs]

And yet, every church out there teaches something that another church teaches is heresy.

It seems to me we spend entirely too much time trying to argue over fine points of theology, when we should be trying to actually get out there and live it. How many thousands of Christians have other Christians killed over disagreements about theology? Are we not ready, yet, to admit to a little bit of uncertainty about the finer points?

[MattMMMan17]

I referred to your statement about heresies committed by the EARLY Church, the Catholic Church that stands today. Not denominations that have been formed since then. And what some deem as "fine" points, others deem as necessary for a full understanding of God and salvation. But I am in full agreement with you that too many people have died in the name of God. Too many injustices have occurred. And we would all benefit from walking the narrow path more often

[Erwin]

This thread has become a debate between denominations regarding doctrine, and belongs in other forums. I am closing this thread.