Are creeds, confessions, and theological language important?
- Thread starter UnitedWithChrist
- 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.
I wouldn't agree with your last remark, although I would modify it to say that God can actively decree certain events, and passively decree others. For instance, if God created beings who were capable of sin, and he knew they would, then he passively decreed sin.
I am not saying he is the author of sin, but no event is outside of his sovereign control ultimately.
I doubt the Westminster authors would disagree with my position on that.
I am not saying he is the author of sin, but no event is outside of his sovereign control ultimately.
I doubt the Westminster authors would disagree with my position on that.
Creeds and confessions define Christianity in a systematic way. All of the ones I've seen copiously supply Scripture to support their points.
In this day, those who don't want to confess the same beliefs can go off and form their own confession. But, at least their groups are identified as non-conformists so others can avoid them, particularly on core elements like the deity of Christ and the Trinity.
In this day, those who don't want to confess the same beliefs can go off and form their own confession. But, at least their groups are identified as non-conformists so others can avoid them, particularly on core elements like the deity of Christ and the Trinity.
-
1
- Show all
This could be a danger, but not for serious Christians. The most academic of denominations actually are confessional.
Unfortunately the church I'm attending doesn't hold a particular confession though.
One must also realize that some earlier societies were not as literate as ours and it is easier to memorize a creed.
Unfortunately the church I'm attending doesn't hold a particular confession though.
One must also realize that some earlier societies were not as literate as ours and it is easier to memorize a creed.
-
1
- Show all
I kinda view it like this... even Peter (following Jesus' resurrection) got something wrong in how he perceived what Jesus actually had said (context: "the third time" He was revealed to His disciples after His resurrection, per v.14):
John 21 -
20 Having turned, Peter sees the disciple whom Jesus loved following, the one who also had reclined on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is it who is betraying You?” 21 Therefore having seen him, Peter says to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?”
22 Jesus says to him [/to Peter], “If I desire him to remain until I come, what is it to you? You follow Me!” 23 Therefore this saying went out among the brothers, that this disciple does not die. But Jesus had not said to him that he does not die, but, “If I desire him to remain until I come, what is it to you?”
John 21 -
20 Having turned, Peter sees the disciple whom Jesus loved following, the one who also had reclined on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is it who is betraying You?” 21 Therefore having seen him, Peter says to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?”
22 Jesus says to him [/to Peter], “If I desire him to remain until I come, what is it to you? You follow Me!” 23 Therefore this saying went out among the brothers, that this disciple does not die. But Jesus had not said to him that he does not die, but, “If I desire him to remain until I come, what is it to you?”
What does that mean? You are correct that I am definitely seeking. Has led me to many places. "almost" too many. Rife with frustration. at times. Other times, I have no idea how I would have ever thought about something or engaged a system of thought if I weren't looking so hard. I am also suspicious of people, but I can't deny when the Lord is in something.
-
1
- Show all
I think you'll find the creeds state that He descended into Hades/Sheol, not "Hell." Acts 2v27, Psalm 16v10, Eph 4v9,10.
The English word “Hell,” comes from the Saxon “helan,” to cover; it originally meant, “a covered or invisible place.” However, in many people’s eyes, the word “Hell,” has come to mean, “the place of the future eternal punishment of the wicked.” It no longer conveys the idea of “Sheol” or “Hades.” It is, therefore, unfortunate that “Sheol,” “Hades,” “Gehenna,” and “Tartarus” are all translated by the word “Hell” in the Authorised Version of the Bible. {Tartarus,” is the place in the Abyss where evil angels are confined. 2Pet.2v4.}.
The English word “Hell,” comes from the Saxon “helan,” to cover; it originally meant, “a covered or invisible place.” However, in many people’s eyes, the word “Hell,” has come to mean, “the place of the future eternal punishment of the wicked.” It no longer conveys the idea of “Sheol” or “Hades.” It is, therefore, unfortunate that “Sheol,” “Hades,” “Gehenna,” and “Tartarus” are all translated by the word “Hell” in the Authorised Version of the Bible. {Tartarus,” is the place in the Abyss where evil angels are confined. 2Pet.2v4.}.
A very important point. Agreed.
One just needs to know whether a particular "creed" or "confession" is indeed biblical or it isn't.
For example...
I disagree with John Calvin, here (that is, I believe this is NOT what Scripture says):
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion -
"Those, therefore, whom God passes by, he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children.
"But if all whom the Lord predestines to death, are naturally liable to sentence of death, of what injustice, pray, do they complain because by his eternal providence they were before their birth doomed to perpetual destruction, what will they be able to mutter against this defence? Of this, no other cause can be adduced than reprobation, which is hidden in the secret counsel of God.
"Now since the arrangement of all things is in the hand of God, He arranges that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction. God, according to the good pleasure of his will, without any regard to merit, elects those whom he chooses for sons, while he rejects and reprobates others.
"It is right for him to show by punishing that he is a just judge. Here the words of Augustine most admirably apply. When other vessels are made unto dishonour, it must be imputed not to injustice, but to judgment."
--John Calvin
____________
...and from what I can tell, the "1689 LBC" uses the above language [esp the bold] (I could be mistaken, here, but don't think so).
Melach, you and I covered this in past posts, recall?
One just needs to know whether a particular "creed" or "confession" is indeed biblical or it isn't.
For example...
I disagree with John Calvin, here (that is, I believe this is NOT what Scripture says):
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion -
"Those, therefore, whom God passes by, he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children.
"But if all whom the Lord predestines to death, are naturally liable to sentence of death, of what injustice, pray, do they complain because by his eternal providence they were before their birth doomed to perpetual destruction, what will they be able to mutter against this defence? Of this, no other cause can be adduced than reprobation, which is hidden in the secret counsel of God.
"Now since the arrangement of all things is in the hand of God, He arranges that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction. God, according to the good pleasure of his will, without any regard to merit, elects those whom he chooses for sons, while he rejects and reprobates others.
"It is right for him to show by punishing that he is a just judge. Here the words of Augustine most admirably apply. When other vessels are made unto dishonour, it must be imputed not to injustice, but to judgment."
--John Calvin
____________
...and from what I can tell, the "1689 LBC" uses the above language [esp the bold] (I could be mistaken, here, but don't think so).
Melach, you and I covered this in past posts, recall?
The confessions of Reformed theology are the Westminster Confession and the 1689 London Baptist Confession.
Here's the section on God's decree, with Scriptural references. You need to argue against the confessional statements with Scripture:
Chapter 3: Of God's Decree
1. God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree. ( Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11; Hebrews 6:17; Romans 9:15, 18; James 1:13; 1 John 1:5; Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Numbers 23:19; Ephesians 1:3-5 )
2. Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything, because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions. ( Acts 15:18; Romans 9:11, 13, 16, 18 )
3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice. ( 1 Timothy 5:21; Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:5, 6; Romans 9:22, 23; Jude 4 )
4. These angels and men thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished. ( 2 Timothy 2:19; John 13:18 )
5. Those of mankind that are predestinated to life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any other thing in the creature as a condition or cause moving him thereunto. ( Ephesians 1:4, 9, 11; Romans 8:30; 2 Timothy 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:9; Romans 9:13, 16; Ephesians 2:5, 12 )
6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so he hath, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto; wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation; neither are any other redeemed by Christ, or effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. ( 1 Peter 1:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:9, 10; Romans 8:30; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:5; John 10:26; John 17:9; John 6:64 )
7. The doctrine of the high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election; so shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God, and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel. ( 1 Thessalonians 1:4, 5; 2 Peter 1:10; Ephesians 1:6; Romans 11:33; Romans 11:5, 6, 20; Luke 10:20 )
One CC Member on here told me that the following wasn't in the "original creed" but was changed at some later date to thereafter reflect what is shown below (I forget what "year" he said this changed... I just hope the readers of creeds, and this one in particular, know! ) :
[quoting Gaebelein on 1 Peter 3]
"The chief question is: Did our Lord go to Hades in a disembodied state? In fact, all depends on the question of what is the true meaning of the sentence, “quickened by the Spirit.” Now, according to the interpretations of the men who teach that the Lord visited Hades, the spirits in prison, during the interval between His death and the morning of the third day, He descended into these regions while His dead body was still in the grave. Therefore, these teachers claim that His human spirit was quickened, which necessitates that the spirit which the dying Christ commended into the Father’s hands had also died. This is not only incorrect doctrine, but it is an unsound and evil doctrine. Was the holy humanity of our Lord, body, soul and spirit dead? A thousands times No! Only His body died; that is the only part of Him which could die. The text makes this clear: “He was put to death in flesh,” that is, His body. There could be no quickening of His spirit, for His spirit was alive. Furthermore, the word quickening, as we learn from Ephesians 1:20 and Ephesians 2:5-6, by comparing the two passages, applies to His physical resurrection, it is the quickening of His body. To teach that the Lord Jesus was made alive before His resurrection is unscriptural. The “quickened by the Spirit” means the raising up of His body. His human spirit needed no quickening; it was His body and only His body. And the Spirit who did the quickening is not His own spirit, that is, His human spirit, but the Holy Spirit. Romans 8:11 speaks of the Spirit as raising Jesus from among the dead.
"We have shown that it was an impossibility that Christ was in any way quickened while His body was not yet raised, hence a visit to Hades is positively excluded between His death and resurrection. There is only another alternative. If it is true that He descended into these regions, then it must have been after His resurrection. But that is equally untenable. The so-called “Apostle’s Creed” puts the descent between His death and resurrection and all the other theorists follow this view. We have shown what the passage does not mean. It cannot mean a visit of the disembodied Christ to Hades, for it speaks of the quickening by the Spirit, and that means His physical resurrection."
--Gaebelein, Commentary on 1 Peter 3 [source: BibleHub]
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/gaebelein/1_peter/3.htm
[end quoting; bold and underline mine]
) :[quoting Gaebelein on 1 Peter 3]
"The chief question is: Did our Lord go to Hades in a disembodied state? In fact, all depends on the question of what is the true meaning of the sentence, “quickened by the Spirit.” Now, according to the interpretations of the men who teach that the Lord visited Hades, the spirits in prison, during the interval between His death and the morning of the third day, He descended into these regions while His dead body was still in the grave. Therefore, these teachers claim that His human spirit was quickened, which necessitates that the spirit which the dying Christ commended into the Father’s hands had also died. This is not only incorrect doctrine, but it is an unsound and evil doctrine. Was the holy humanity of our Lord, body, soul and spirit dead? A thousands times No! Only His body died; that is the only part of Him which could die. The text makes this clear: “He was put to death in flesh,” that is, His body. There could be no quickening of His spirit, for His spirit was alive. Furthermore, the word quickening, as we learn from Ephesians 1:20 and Ephesians 2:5-6, by comparing the two passages, applies to His physical resurrection, it is the quickening of His body. To teach that the Lord Jesus was made alive before His resurrection is unscriptural. The “quickened by the Spirit” means the raising up of His body. His human spirit needed no quickening; it was His body and only His body. And the Spirit who did the quickening is not His own spirit, that is, His human spirit, but the Holy Spirit. Romans 8:11 speaks of the Spirit as raising Jesus from among the dead.
"We have shown that it was an impossibility that Christ was in any way quickened while His body was not yet raised, hence a visit to Hades is positively excluded between His death and resurrection. There is only another alternative. If it is true that He descended into these regions, then it must have been after His resurrection. But that is equally untenable. The so-called “Apostle’s Creed” puts the descent between His death and resurrection and all the other theorists follow this view. We have shown what the passage does not mean. It cannot mean a visit of the disembodied Christ to Hades, for it speaks of the quickening by the Spirit, and that means His physical resurrection."
--Gaebelein, Commentary on 1 Peter 3 [source: BibleHub]
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/gaebelein/1_peter/3.htm
[end quoting; bold and underline mine]
Christianity in some circles has been reduced to vacuous emotionalism, featuring disorderly antics like flopping on the floor, blabbering in fake tongues, and strutting about claiming to be apostles and prophets.
Other groups have vapid, children-church level teaching, instead of deep, meaty sermons.
Both of these problems are the result of "Revivalist" preachers of the 19th century, and those who have been affected by them. Revivalists created negative attitudes concerning solid biblical teaching through their blatant disrespect for deeper doctrinal teachings and their accentuation of emotionalism and phony sensationalism.
America needs to get back to studying Christianity as expressed in creeds, confessions, and catechisms. These tools provide the doctrinal kindling and woodpile that the Holy Spirit ignites into fire at the right time. Unfortunately, few Americans know these fine documents from the past, and many of those that know about them scoff at them, due to the anti-academic attitudes of "Revivalists" like Charles Finney and his ilk.
I recommend reading the London Baptist Confession of 1689 or the Westminster Confession (Presbyterian) for deeper, meatier teachings. Keach's Catechism (Baptist), Heidelberg Catechism (Reformed), and the Westminster Larger Catechism (Presbyterian) and Shorter Catechism (Presbyterian) are also fantastic.
They are available online:
https://opc.org/documents/MESV_frames.html
http://www.1689.com/confession.html
http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/keachcat.htm
https://www.apuritansmind.com/westminster-standards/larger-catechism/
https://opc.org/sc.html
https://students.wts.edu/resources/creeds/heidelberg.html
Other groups have vapid, children-church level teaching, instead of deep, meaty sermons.
Both of these problems are the result of "Revivalist" preachers of the 19th century, and those who have been affected by them. Revivalists created negative attitudes concerning solid biblical teaching through their blatant disrespect for deeper doctrinal teachings and their accentuation of emotionalism and phony sensationalism.
America needs to get back to studying Christianity as expressed in creeds, confessions, and catechisms. These tools provide the doctrinal kindling and woodpile that the Holy Spirit ignites into fire at the right time. Unfortunately, few Americans know these fine documents from the past, and many of those that know about them scoff at them, due to the anti-academic attitudes of "Revivalists" like Charles Finney and his ilk.
I recommend reading the London Baptist Confession of 1689 or the Westminster Confession (Presbyterian) for deeper, meatier teachings. Keach's Catechism (Baptist), Heidelberg Catechism (Reformed), and the Westminster Larger Catechism (Presbyterian) and Shorter Catechism (Presbyterian) are also fantastic.
They are available online:
https://opc.org/documents/MESV_frames.html
http://www.1689.com/confession.html
http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/keachcat.htm
https://www.apuritansmind.com/westminster-standards/larger-catechism/
https://opc.org/sc.html
https://students.wts.edu/resources/creeds/heidelberg.html
]
The main problem with your premise is that the older the creeds, confessions or catechisms are the more sound you think they are. Whereas some of us do not trust those older creeds and such based on the people that introduced them.
I personally believe antichrist [Satan] turned Christianity early and the real church had to go into hiding. Like through the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisitions where Christianity became very ugly under Rome's leadership. My second book points out that sullied history that we get our traditions from.
Whereas you think that the Adventist Movement in the mid Nineteenth and the Pentecostal of the early Twentieth are bad things, I think just the opposite. I am sorry that pushy Adventists and Pentecostals have put you off. They have me also but I am not going to let Satan steal the truths they introduced because of that. I understand the spirit within you will not let you agree with me and I am alright with that. I believe we are slowly finding our way back to the real truths of God's word and prophecies.
That God's word is debated and discussed in truth or in error is good for all involved. You can proclaim your version from the rooftops and I can proclaim mine. When all is said and done we will see which version God backs up.
I personally believe antichrist [Satan] turned Christianity early and the real church had to go into hiding. Like through the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisitions where Christianity became very ugly under Rome's leadership. My second book points out that sullied history that we get our traditions from.
Whereas you think that the Adventist Movement in the mid Nineteenth and the Pentecostal of the early Twentieth are bad things, I think just the opposite. I am sorry that pushy Adventists and Pentecostals have put you off. They have me also but I am not going to let Satan steal the truths they introduced because of that. I understand the spirit within you will not let you agree with me and I am alright with that. I believe we are slowly finding our way back to the real truths of God's word and prophecies.
That God's word is debated and discussed in truth or in error is good for all involved. You can proclaim your version from the rooftops and I can proclaim mine. When all is said and done we will see which version God backs up.
Whats your thoughts on this?
Baptist faith and message 2000
V. God's Purpose of Grace
Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility.
All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.
Baptist faith and message 2000
V. God's Purpose of Grace
Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility.
All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.
One CC Member on here told me that the following wasn't in the "original creed" but was changed at some later date to thereafter reflect what is shown below (I forget what "year" he said this changed... I just hope the readers of creeds, and this one in particular, know! ) :
[quoting Gaebelein on 1 Peter 3]
"The chief question is: Did our Lord go to Hades in a disembodied state? In fact, all depends on the question of what is the true meaning of the sentence, “quickened by the Spirit.” Now, according to the interpretations of the men who teach that the Lord visited Hades, the spirits in prison, during the interval between His death and the morning of the third day, He descended into these regions while His dead body was still in the grave. Therefore, these teachers claim that His human spirit was quickened, which necessitates that the spirit which the dying Christ commended into the Father’s hands had also died. This is not only incorrect doctrine, but it is an unsound and evil doctrine. Was the holy humanity of our Lord, body, soul and spirit dead? A thousands times No! Only His body died; that is the only part of Him which could die. The text makes this clear: “He was put to death in flesh,” that is, His body. There could be no quickening of His spirit, for His spirit was alive. Furthermore, the word quickening, as we learn from Ephesians 1:20 and Ephesians 2:5-6, by comparing the two passages, applies to His physical resurrection, it is the quickening of His body. To teach that the Lord Jesus was made alive before His resurrection is unscriptural. The “quickened by the Spirit” means the raising up of His body. His human spirit needed no quickening; it was His body and only His body. And the Spirit who did the quickening is not His own spirit, that is, His human spirit, but the Holy Spirit. Romans 8:11 speaks of the Spirit as raising Jesus from among the dead.
"We have shown that it was an impossibility that Christ was in any way quickened while His body was not yet raised, hence a visit to Hades is positively excluded between His death and resurrection. There is only another alternative. If it is true that He descended into these regions, then it must have been after His resurrection. But that is equally untenable. The so-called “Apostle’s Creed” puts the descent between His death and resurrection and all the other theorists follow this view. We have shown what the passage does not mean. It cannot mean a visit of the disembodied Christ to Hades, for it speaks of the quickening by the Spirit, and that means His physical resurrection."
--Gaebelein, Commentary on 1 Peter 3 [source: BibleHub]
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/gaebelein/1_peter/3.htm
[end quoting; bold and underline mine]
) :[quoting Gaebelein on 1 Peter 3]
"The chief question is: Did our Lord go to Hades in a disembodied state? In fact, all depends on the question of what is the true meaning of the sentence, “quickened by the Spirit.” Now, according to the interpretations of the men who teach that the Lord visited Hades, the spirits in prison, during the interval between His death and the morning of the third day, He descended into these regions while His dead body was still in the grave. Therefore, these teachers claim that His human spirit was quickened, which necessitates that the spirit which the dying Christ commended into the Father’s hands had also died. This is not only incorrect doctrine, but it is an unsound and evil doctrine. Was the holy humanity of our Lord, body, soul and spirit dead? A thousands times No! Only His body died; that is the only part of Him which could die. The text makes this clear: “He was put to death in flesh,” that is, His body. There could be no quickening of His spirit, for His spirit was alive. Furthermore, the word quickening, as we learn from Ephesians 1:20 and Ephesians 2:5-6, by comparing the two passages, applies to His physical resurrection, it is the quickening of His body. To teach that the Lord Jesus was made alive before His resurrection is unscriptural. The “quickened by the Spirit” means the raising up of His body. His human spirit needed no quickening; it was His body and only His body. And the Spirit who did the quickening is not His own spirit, that is, His human spirit, but the Holy Spirit. Romans 8:11 speaks of the Spirit as raising Jesus from among the dead.
"We have shown that it was an impossibility that Christ was in any way quickened while His body was not yet raised, hence a visit to Hades is positively excluded between His death and resurrection. There is only another alternative. If it is true that He descended into these regions, then it must have been after His resurrection. But that is equally untenable. The so-called “Apostle’s Creed” puts the descent between His death and resurrection and all the other theorists follow this view. We have shown what the passage does not mean. It cannot mean a visit of the disembodied Christ to Hades, for it speaks of the quickening by the Spirit, and that means His physical resurrection."
--Gaebelein, Commentary on 1 Peter 3 [source: BibleHub]
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/gaebelein/1_peter/3.htm
[end quoting; bold and underline mine]
I use the creeds to check myself and others by. Mainly the Ecumenical Creeds that define Christianity up until the Council of Ephesus in 431. This covers everything from Theology to Eschatology. These point out the cults and sects that have removed themselves from the Church but exist under that disguise. I also check in with the later creeds that continue in that vein. So my roots run deep where many today have roots only one or two hundred years old.
-
1
- Show all
I think you need to be aware that my association with Adventist-type theology is more than simple observance.
I am a former Armstrongite. His theology came largely from Adventists.
And, I will note to others that the above words are the typical metanarrative of virtually all Restorationist cults. Restorationist cults formed in the early 1800's, and claim to be a restoration of the true church. Somehow, though, they often proclaim a parallel stream of believers that continued from the apostolic church to our day, and THEY are this parallel stream.
This metanarrative is conveyed time after time by various cultic groups.
In regards to Sabbathkeepers, a typical book involving such claims was AN Dugger's book "A History of the True Church". Dugger was a Church of God - Seventh Day pastor. He claimed that Arius was a great defender of the true faith, which is enough to make any intelligent Christian laugh.
He traces a lineage of his church movement from the apostolic days to our day. His book was used by several cults as support material.
Anyways, he fails to note that many of the groups he promotes were not Trinitarian Christians. Additionally, he didn't realize that many of these groups were heretics in regards to the nature of God and the Trinity, as well as the deity of Christ. Additionally, while he thought that they were Sabbathkeepers, the reality was that they used the word "Sabbath" to mean "Sunday" and considered it the NT equivalent. Finally, he based his teachings on conjecture. An example of this is the name for one of the groups. The group was called the "Sabati". He claimed this had to do with the Sabbath, and their Sabbath-keeping, but in reality it did not have to do with the Sabbath, it had to do with their footwear, which were a certain kind of sandal.
So, my history is replete with listening to wild-eyed fanatics who have listened to men such as these. I was one of the most avid followers of their nonsense.
Along with this, they quote rabid anti-Roman Catholics like Alexander Hislop, whose book "Two Babylons" claims that Roman Catholics, in reality, worship Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz, just like all other pagan religions. The problem with this is that Nimrod and Semiramis didn't even exist in the same century, so they couldn't have been the husband-wife combo he claimed.
His book is full of bad logic and false claims. While I don't agree with Roman Catholicism, and believe she is a fallen church, I certainly don't believe Hislopite propaganda. Yet, it forms the grist mill of teachings like Sabbatarians utilize.
And, in regards to the SDAs in particular, their own historian, Samuele Bacchiocchi, researched the Sabbath/Sunday issue and acknowledged that Ellen G. White's vision about the Pope changing the Sabbath could not be true because the Sabbath had ceased to be observed by the vast majority of Christians by AD 135. This is long before there was any such thing as a pope. There was a bishop in many cities including Rome, but the Roman bishopric made no such decision.
The reality is that the Roman Catholic church evolved over a very long period of time, and could not seriously be considered a ruling authority within Christianity until much, much later. Different historians would place this date at different junctures. However, if you believe Sabbathkeepers, they will have you thinking that this occurred centuries before the vast majority of credible historians would place this date. I don't think you could place it before 600 AD. Others would say 1054 AD or later.
Regarding Pentecostalism, I would be willing to consider the claim that "tongues" are still for today..although I hate using that word..but almost every organization exercises them in an unbiblical way, even if their claims were true. For instance, Paul says that only one person is to speak at once, and he is to be interpreted. So, almost all Pentecostals I know have a massive blabfest where they all speak at once. At best they are disobedient Christians, and at worst deceived, in this regard. Additionally, I believe that this is the gift of languages and not "tongues". The fact that they use the word "tongues" is annoying to me alone.
However, the Pentecostal issue is not an essential doctrine. I simply don't like the downplay of academic learning within Christianity that some groups have brought about, and these groups have been influenced by the Revivalist movement in many ways.
Regarding creeds, confessions and catechisms, it is notable that the heretic Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons, attacked these teaching tools specifically when he proclaimed himself to be the one God was using to restore "true religion" to the world.
By the way, just so you guys know, many Sabbatarians refer to their teachings as "the Truth". It is as if they don't believe other Christians are saved. For example, in the Armstrongite movement, a common discussion topic at church meals was "When did you come into the knowledge of the Truth?". And, by this, they mean Armstrongism, not Christianity. I understand SDAs use the same language, and so do a lot of cultic groups.
I am a former Armstrongite. His theology came largely from Adventists.
And, I will note to others that the above words are the typical metanarrative of virtually all Restorationist cults. Restorationist cults formed in the early 1800's, and claim to be a restoration of the true church. Somehow, though, they often proclaim a parallel stream of believers that continued from the apostolic church to our day, and THEY are this parallel stream.
This metanarrative is conveyed time after time by various cultic groups.
In regards to Sabbathkeepers, a typical book involving such claims was AN Dugger's book "A History of the True Church". Dugger was a Church of God - Seventh Day pastor. He claimed that Arius was a great defender of the true faith, which is enough to make any intelligent Christian laugh.
He traces a lineage of his church movement from the apostolic days to our day. His book was used by several cults as support material.
Anyways, he fails to note that many of the groups he promotes were not Trinitarian Christians. Additionally, he didn't realize that many of these groups were heretics in regards to the nature of God and the Trinity, as well as the deity of Christ. Additionally, while he thought that they were Sabbathkeepers, the reality was that they used the word "Sabbath" to mean "Sunday" and considered it the NT equivalent. Finally, he based his teachings on conjecture. An example of this is the name for one of the groups. The group was called the "Sabati". He claimed this had to do with the Sabbath, and their Sabbath-keeping, but in reality it did not have to do with the Sabbath, it had to do with their footwear, which were a certain kind of sandal.
So, my history is replete with listening to wild-eyed fanatics who have listened to men such as these. I was one of the most avid followers of their nonsense.
Along with this, they quote rabid anti-Roman Catholics like Alexander Hislop, whose book "Two Babylons" claims that Roman Catholics, in reality, worship Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz, just like all other pagan religions. The problem with this is that Nimrod and Semiramis didn't even exist in the same century, so they couldn't have been the husband-wife combo he claimed.
His book is full of bad logic and false claims. While I don't agree with Roman Catholicism, and believe she is a fallen church, I certainly don't believe Hislopite propaganda. Yet, it forms the grist mill of teachings like Sabbatarians utilize.
And, in regards to the SDAs in particular, their own historian, Samuele Bacchiocchi, researched the Sabbath/Sunday issue and acknowledged that Ellen G. White's vision about the Pope changing the Sabbath could not be true because the Sabbath had ceased to be observed by the vast majority of Christians by AD 135. This is long before there was any such thing as a pope. There was a bishop in many cities including Rome, but the Roman bishopric made no such decision.
The reality is that the Roman Catholic church evolved over a very long period of time, and could not seriously be considered a ruling authority within Christianity until much, much later. Different historians would place this date at different junctures. However, if you believe Sabbathkeepers, they will have you thinking that this occurred centuries before the vast majority of credible historians would place this date. I don't think you could place it before 600 AD. Others would say 1054 AD or later.
Regarding Pentecostalism, I would be willing to consider the claim that "tongues" are still for today..although I hate using that word..but almost every organization exercises them in an unbiblical way, even if their claims were true. For instance, Paul says that only one person is to speak at once, and he is to be interpreted. So, almost all Pentecostals I know have a massive blabfest where they all speak at once. At best they are disobedient Christians, and at worst deceived, in this regard. Additionally, I believe that this is the gift of languages and not "tongues". The fact that they use the word "tongues" is annoying to me alone.
However, the Pentecostal issue is not an essential doctrine. I simply don't like the downplay of academic learning within Christianity that some groups have brought about, and these groups have been influenced by the Revivalist movement in many ways.
Regarding creeds, confessions and catechisms, it is notable that the heretic Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons, attacked these teaching tools specifically when he proclaimed himself to be the one God was using to restore "true religion" to the world.
By the way, just so you guys know, many Sabbatarians refer to their teachings as "the Truth". It is as if they don't believe other Christians are saved. For example, in the Armstrongite movement, a common discussion topic at church meals was "When did you come into the knowledge of the Truth?". And, by this, they mean Armstrongism, not Christianity. I understand SDAs use the same language, and so do a lot of cultic groups.
-
1
- Show all