Biblical inerrancy vs. Creeds
- Thread starter Enoch987
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
One addendum to my earlier post, and I'll leave everyone alone.
Incoherence:
If you say "I dislike creeds, but I love doctrines right from the Bible", it's just like saying, "I dislike baskets of fruit, but I love apples."
It's just incoherent.
If you say you dislike "baskets of fruit", but you like apples, then what happens when a "particular basket of fruit" contains apples?
What then?
You've contradicted yourself.
You've contradicted yourself, and you've managed to look kind of silly.
The phrase "basket of fruit" is a broad inclusive term, and the word "apple" is a subcategory that can rest within it.
The same relationship exists between the word "creed" and the phrase "biblical doctrine".
It is simply incoherent to say you dislike creeds, but you like the bible.
What if you find a particular creed which contains bible doctrines you DO like?
What then?
Well, then you've just contradicted yourself.
And this contradiction is inherent, as someone, somewhere, has a "creed" that will contain the doctrines you like.
Alright, I'm done.
Have fun.
Incoherence:
If you say "I dislike creeds, but I love doctrines right from the Bible", it's just like saying, "I dislike baskets of fruit, but I love apples."
It's just incoherent.
If you say you dislike "baskets of fruit", but you like apples, then what happens when a "particular basket of fruit" contains apples?
What then?
You've contradicted yourself.
You've contradicted yourself, and you've managed to look kind of silly.
The phrase "basket of fruit" is a broad inclusive term, and the word "apple" is a subcategory that can rest within it.
The same relationship exists between the word "creed" and the phrase "biblical doctrine".
It is simply incoherent to say you dislike creeds, but you like the bible.
What if you find a particular creed which contains bible doctrines you DO like?
What then?
Well, then you've just contradicted yourself.
And this contradiction is inherent, as someone, somewhere, has a "creed" that will contain the doctrines you like.
Alright, I'm done.
Have fun.
The firstborn son is chosen and is not related to birth order. 1 Chronicles26:10 has another example. Shimri was chosen to be firstborn by his father but he was not born first. I think the Bible's point is one the sons' of God was chosen to be God the Son. God knew that Jesus would be the obedient son. The Creeds say the Triune God was and is God forever. It's easier to see the Son s subservient to the Father when we see the Son as chosen and anointed before Creation.
Pre-eminence is a big word that needs a definition. It means most important. this fits the bible that Jesus was chosen from the other sons of God and anointed to be God the Son, the 2nd person of the Triune God.
God the Father chose the Son who would be obedient. This may be what upset Satan. Satan thought he would be chosen. This story is told in earthly terms with Cain and Abel.
God the Father chose the Son who would be obedient. This may be what upset Satan. Satan thought he would be chosen. This story is told in earthly terms with Cain and Abel.
so if I take out the word Creed and use Doctrine of the Triune God that is eternal and not created then you would be okay with my interpretation? Jesus was chosen and anointed from his companions before creation to be God the Son, the 2nd person of the Triune God. God chose Jesus because He knew that Jesus would obey Him.
I do not subscribe to creeds since the Bible is our sole authority. However, what makes you say that the creeds ignore these Scriptures?
Apostles Creed: And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord
Athanasian Creed: For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.
Apostles Creed: And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord
Athanasian Creed: For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.
1. When I first posted, you had not yet mentioned any particular "interpretation"... so there was no interpretation for me to have a problem with.
: )
2. My whole point was simply to say we should try to IDENTIFY THE REAL ISSUES, and not accidentally make a boogey man out of a particular word... like the word "creed".
In Christian culture this happens all the time.
It's often accidental.
3. For the record, I don't have any particular problem with anyone here - I was just pointing out the need to be more careful in identifying the issues we're debating.
When we misidentify an issue, or mislabel it...
then we all end up arguing about things which are NOT the actual issue, and may not even have any bearing on the actual issue.
The first step in debate is to carefully identify the actual issue.
4. The word "creed" is a BROAD TERM which just means a belief, usually a "list of beliefs", like a list of doctrines... and I think this word is far too vague to be the basis for a whole debate.
This word can refer to virtually anything.
Since the word can refer to virtually anything, it is INEVITABLE that debating the word "creed" will end up in all kinds of confusion.
* You will assume it's referring to one thing, and I'll assume it's referring to something else.
* It's better to skip this vague word, and actually pinpoint the things we want to debate.
* Even if you identified "one particular creed", or "parts of a particular creed", that would be perfectly clear... but debating a very vague word can only lead to confusion.
This was really my only point, and my entire point.
That is all.
If we start a debate by using a confusing term, then every moment of the debate can, and likely will, fall into confusion.
Last edited:
For Jesus to be chosen, there needs to be other sons who weren't. (1 Peter 1:20) For God to have a choice of sons to chose one to be the firstborn, there has to be a choice between at least 2 sons. John 1:14 Jesus is the only son who took on flesh to dwell among us. John 3:16 Jesus is the only begotten son of God. (begotten defined as being born as a human, the eternally begotten phrase of the Creeds does not apply to John 3:16). John 1:18 the Greek text is "mono genes theos". Literal translation "Jesus is of the one family of God." Bibles translate this as "the only Son, God." Jesus to be anointed from his companions (Hebrews 1:8-9), Jesus companions could have been chosen but God choose Jesus. Jesus is always obedient to the Father. Jesus character is the same yesterday, today and forever. His titles increase but his nature remains the same.
If Jesus is the only Son of God then God didn't have a choice. Jude calls the other sons "archangels." Daniel 10 calls the sons "princes" (the son of a King). Jesus is Daniel's lord in Daniel 10. Job tells of the sons of God presenting themselves to God.
If Jesus is the only Son of God then God didn't have a choice. Jude calls the other sons "archangels." Daniel 10 calls the sons "princes" (the son of a King). Jesus is Daniel's lord in Daniel 10. Job tells of the sons of God presenting themselves to God.
Your partly right enoch regarding the "firstborn" issue because the title "firstborn" does not necessarily refewr to the one born first or even born at all. The father can designate whomever he chooses "firstborn." Exodus 4:22, And thou shal say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn." Also David was chosen as firstborn, by God, although he was not the eldest of his brothers.
What I do disagree with is when you said the following: " I think the Bible's point is one the sons' of God was chosen to be God the Son. God knew that Jesus would be the obedient son." Jesus Christ who is the God the Son was not chosen by God His Father. Since Jesus Christ is God He always existed as God and then at the appropriate time God sent His Son to be the Savior of the world.
Please read Philippians 2:3-10 for starters and then I'll give you more proof that Jesus was "NOT" chosen by God His Father as you say. Btw, regarding the creeds, there is nothing wrong with the creeds and they serve a valuable service. they served for the purposes of correcting various heresies that would arise. The Nicene Creed addressed the Arian heresy for example.
Creeds are also essention Christian truth. The Athanasian Creed affirms the truth of the Trinity, Christ's incarnation, resurrection, ascension, second coming, and final judgment. I could give other reasons regarding the purpose of the creeds but I hope you get the idea.
And for your information there are "Creeds" within the Bible itself. 1 Corinthians 15:3,4 is a creed. So is 1 Timothy 2:5-6. Some of them sort of summarize Christian beliefs. Any other questions I will be happy to address.
PS: Again, please read Philippians 2:3-10 and tell me how you understand what the verses are teaching.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
What I do disagree with is when you said the following: " I think the Bible's point is one the sons' of God was chosen to be God the Son. God knew that Jesus would be the obedient son." Jesus Christ who is the God the Son was not chosen by God His Father. Since Jesus Christ is God He always existed as God and then at the appropriate time God sent His Son to be the Savior of the world.
Please read Philippians 2:3-10 for starters and then I'll give you more proof that Jesus was "NOT" chosen by God His Father as you say. Btw, regarding the creeds, there is nothing wrong with the creeds and they serve a valuable service. they served for the purposes of correcting various heresies that would arise. The Nicene Creed addressed the Arian heresy for example.
Creeds are also essention Christian truth. The Athanasian Creed affirms the truth of the Trinity, Christ's incarnation, resurrection, ascension, second coming, and final judgment. I could give other reasons regarding the purpose of the creeds but I hope you get the idea.
And for your information there are "Creeds" within the Bible itself. 1 Corinthians 15:3,4 is a creed. So is 1 Timothy 2:5-6. Some of them sort of summarize Christian beliefs. Any other questions I will be happy to address.
PS: Again, please read Philippians 2:3-10 and tell me how you understand what the verses are teaching. IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Gulp, that is where my interpretation leads. Satan may not be one of the sons of God that wasn't chosen. What I read into scripture as a possibility is Satan thought he would be chosen as God's firstborn son. Trinitarians say the Satan was an angel (Ezekiel 28 in the Protestant Bible says Satan was created as the anointed cherub. The Septuagint says that Satan was created with the anointed cherub. To muddy the waters more, if we say that Jesus is the Wisdom of God in Proverbs 8:22+ then what do we do with Wisdom being created who in turn creates mankind. Both are scriptures I don't want to touch.)
My main point is Jesus was chosen before creation and anointed from his companions. The Creeds don't allow for this. My interpretation makes the Son subservient to the Father easy to understand while Jesus' obedience the Father is mentioned in the Creeds, the Creeds says the Father and Son are of the same substance. The Creeds argue for equality between Father and Son and say the Son is subservient to the Father.
My main point is Jesus was chosen before creation and anointed from his companions. The Creeds don't allow for this. My interpretation makes the Son subservient to the Father easy to understand while Jesus' obedience the Father is mentioned in the Creeds, the Creeds says the Father and Son are of the same substance. The Creeds argue for equality between Father and Son and say the Son is subservient to the Father.
Again enoch please read Philippians 2:3-10 because it explains why Jesus Christ was subservient to His Father. Secondly, it's the Mormons who teach that Satan and Jesus are spiritual brothers and Jesus was chosen to be the Savior. "Gospel Through the Ages by Milton Hunter page 15 paragraph 3." Written by a Mormon. :eek;
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
The sons who weren't chosen were Michael who Jude calls an archangel (Jude follows the model of only one Son with the remainder being archangels. I don't think archangels are created but I'm not sure Jude that this through). Daniel 10 calls Michael the prince of Israel. A prince is the son of a King. Michael fights against the prince of Persia. Jesus will be the King of kings at his return. He died as king of the Jews. Through the Holy Spirit, Jesus rules in the hearts of those who believe in Him. Satan took a third of the Sons with him (Revelation 12). In Job, the sons of God present themselves to God and Satan is among them. Satan is the prince of the world in John's gospel. God didn't choose Satan or the other Sons, God choose Jesus.
God choose the Son who would obey Him.
God choose the Son who would obey Him.