Posted by Ray Kidder on 10/1/2009, 9:54 pm, in reply to "Re: Information from the Holy Spirit"
98.204.216.96
Searcher,
You wrote:
"There is no reason for a 'creed'. As I stated before, we are never told to put our faith in the doctrine or council of men."
As I have stated here before, I do not consider the works and statements of men to necessarily be separate from the words of God. What makes you think that only the apostles and prophets mentioned in the New Testament can proclaim the words of God? If you take this belief to a logical conclusion, then all contemporary prayers that ask for wisdom from God cannot be answered. This is because if God really gave the praying person His words of wisdom, then they would become a temporary channel for new words from God. Is this what you believe?
According to my theology, a council of men can ask for wisdom in formulating a Christian creed, and true wisdom from God occurs for the writing of this creed. If such a creed is useful in learning truths that set men free, the I would expect the Holy Spirit to promote the belief that such a creed should be adhered to. If such a creed is of little or no use, then I would expect the Holy Spirit to teach people to ignore such a creed; as being only partially correct or no longer applicable to anyone's situation.
According to your theology, what has the Holy Spirit been up to since the 1st century?
You also wrote:
"Ray, you asked if there is an example of where the Nicene creed contradicts the "Protestant" Bible. If you mean the KJV, which I currently use, then yes, there is. No where in the Word does God say we should say, "And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church." No. The Word does not say we should believe in "the church". It says, we should believe in the Lord Jesus Christ."
There are many references to "the church" and "churches" in the New Testament. How can anyone believe in the New Testament without also believing in the "church" and "churches"? A good example is here in Ephesians 5 (NKJV):
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.
24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,
26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word,
27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.
28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.
29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.
30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones.
31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”
32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
If someone does not believe in the church (as the body of Christ), then how can they believe in Christ? It is my understanding that the word "catholic" means the following (from an on-line dictionary):
Catholic
1. Of or involving the Roman Catholic Church.
2. Of or relating to the universal Christian church.
3. Of or relating to the ancient undivided Christian church.
4. Of or relating to those churches that have claimed to be representatives of the ancient undivided church.
I have heard of Protestants who call themselves "Catholics, but not "Roman Catholics". This is because they consider themselves to be a member of the word-wide body of Christ, which is a Catholic mystical body. In 325 AD, most of Christianity was one large church with bishops in charge of geographic areas. The cost of a Bible was enormous, since they had no printing presses. Most of the 27 Protestant books were considered canonical, but there were a handful of doubtful books. Almost all Christians could not walk to their book shelf, and pick up a Bible for their learning. I suspect some had some penned scriptures nearby to read, but this is only if they could even read. Many Christians must have been very dependent upon their local pastors and a few other local Christians for instruction in God's word. With the fear of Arianism, coupled with the lack of available Bibles, why wouldn't the leaders want to formulate a short creed that could be copied and even memorized so that as people learn about the Bible, they would start off with basics that would prevent misunderstandings later on? Does the Nicene Creed promote disbelief in the Lord Jesus Christ? If not, why did you criticize it on the basis of how we should believe in the lord Jesus Christ?
This is from I Timothy 3 (Young's Literal Translation)
14 These things I write to thee, hoping to come unto thee soon,
15 and if I delay, that thou mayest know how it behoveth [thee] to conduct thyself in the house of God, which is an assembly of the living God -- a pillar and foundation of the truth,
Here are these same verses (NKJV):
14 These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly;
15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Comparing these 2 verses in these translations, we read how many translators equate the local house of God with the local church. In addition, one of them claims that there is a pillar and foundation of the truth. If this pillar and foundation of the truth is just God, then this suggests that other than God is another pillar and foundation of the truth; right? If a pillar and foundation of the truth is the local church, then this would explain how other things can also be a pillar and foundation of the truth. It may be other churches that are pillars and foundations of the truth, as these have other members of the body of Christ; right?
I have more comments, but it may be wise to ask yourself what you would have done if you were a prominent Christian with your knowledge of the then accepted canon of scripture, and you were invited to participate in this council. Would you have told other Christians that it would be wrong to formulate a creed on the basis that only the books that are considered canonical should be taught, and that any creeds are merely man-made, and only serve to deceive people into thinking that God's guidance can come from other than accepted as canonical books? Think about the impracticalities of such a system, in light of the low literacy rate, and lack of printing presses.
Ray Kidder
Message Thread:
« Back to thread