"No Creed but the Bible"

[ErikJohnson]

I posted this on another thread in response to a query from a poster. But as we were a bit off-topic over there—I thought I would give it a thread of its own. The poster was challenging the legitimacy of the ancient Christian Creeds. Indeed, his signature reads: “No creed but the Bible”—as though banishment of the Creeds would somehow improve the Christian Faith.

Pastor John Piper has written a short defense of the Creeds and their use of non-Biblical language. You can find the whole article here:
Thoughts on the Sufficiency of Scripture :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

I’ll call out what I think are the most relevant parts and offer them up for comment—

My biographical message at the pastors’ conference this year was on Athanasius who was born in A. D. 298. So I spent a good bit of time studying the doctrinal disputes of the fourth century. The main dispute was over the deity of Christ. Arius (and the Arians) said that the Son of God was a creature and did not always exist. Athanasius defended the eternal deity of the Son and helped win that battle with the wording of the Council of Nicaea: “We believe in . . . the Son of God . . . of the essence of the Father, God of God, and Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.”

One surprising fact that I did not expect to find was that the heretics protested most loudly over the non-scriptural language of the orthodox creed. They pointed out that the phrases, “of one essence with the Father,” and “one substance with the Father” were not in the Bible. The heretics demanded “no creed but the Bible” precisely so that they could use biblical language to evade biblical truth. For example, they would happily call Christ “Son of God,” and then argue that, like all sons, he must have had a beginning.

...

There are many today who would demand “no creed but the Bible” the same way the Arians did. But we should learn from history that biblical language is not enough when it comes to defending the meaning of biblical language. R. P. C. Hanson explained the process like this: “Theologians of the Christian Church were slowly driven to a realization that the deepest questions which face Christianity cannot be answered in purely biblical language, because the questions are about the meaning of biblical language itself”

I think Piper makes a lot of sense here, and defends the Creeds as well as anyone I've read. And I've come to agree with him. What do others think? I’d particularly like to hear from any Latter-Day Saints (LDS) out there….
;0)

--Erik

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

I posted this on another thread in response to a query from a poster. But as we were a bit off-topic over there—I thought I would give it a thread of its own. The poster was challenging the legitimacy of the ancient Christian Creeds. Indeed, his signature reads: “No creed but the Bible”—as though banishment of the Creeds would somehow improve the Christian Faith.

Pastor John Piper has written a short defense of the Creeds and their use of non-Biblical language. You can find the whole article here:
Thoughts on the Sufficiency of Scripture :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

I’ll call out what I think are the most relevant parts and offer them up for comment—

My biographical message at the pastors’ conference this year was on Athanasius who was born in A. D. 298. So I spent a good bit of time studying the doctrinal disputes of the fourth century. The main dispute was over the deity of Christ. Arius (and the Arians) said that the Son of God was a creature and did not always exist. Athanasius defended the eternal deity of the Son and helped win that battle with the wording of the Council of Nicaea: “We believe in . . . the Son of God . . . of the essence of the Father, God of God, and Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.”

One surprising fact that I did not expect to find was that the heretics protested most loudly over the non-scriptural language of the orthodox creed. They pointed out that the phrases, “of one essence with the Father,” and “one substance with the Father” were not in the Bible. The heretics demanded “no creed but the Bible” precisely so that they could use biblical language to evade biblical truth. For example, they would happily call Christ “Son of God,” and then argue that, like all sons, he must have had a beginning.

...

There are many today who would demand “no creed but the Bible” the same way the Arians did. But we should learn from history that biblical language is not enough when it comes to defending the meaning of biblical language. R. P. C. Hanson explained the process like this: “Theologians of the Christian Church were slowly driven to a realization that the deepest questions which face Christianity cannot be answered in purely biblical language, because the questions are about the meaning of biblical language itself”

I think Piper makes a lot of sense here, and defends the Creeds as well as anyone I've read. And I've come to agree with him. What do others think? I’d particularly like to hear from any Latter-Day Arians (LDS) out there….
;0)

--Erik

According to Paul – Jesus pointed some Apostles, some Prophets for a unity of the faith. The LDS stand is that the Bible scriptures used today as canon were not complete and thus the need for various Creeds. Whoever, it is also the LDS view that G-d has never used Creeds over scripture to inform and maintain his “Saints” within their faith and covenants.

In general it is LDS understanding that the leadership of the church fell into apostasy in seeking to resolve conflicts by creeds rather than by revelation that G-d sends through Apostles and Prophets (which in times past have become our scripture). When Jesus spoke to the Prophet Joseph Smith he referred to the Creeds as an Abomination. I understand an abomination to mean the claim to come from G-d but in reality created by men.

The Traveler

[ErikJohnson]

Originally Posted by Traveler

According to Paul – Jesus pointed some Apostles, some Prophets for a unity of the faith.

Hey Traveler, perhaps I missed it, but where does Paul say that Jesus appointed Prophets? Certainly Paul writes that some have the gift of prophecy, but I can't recall what you are saying. Jesus called John the Baptist the "greatest" (Luke 7:28) but also indicated John was the end of the era of the Prophets ("The Law and the Prophets were until John"--Luke 16:16).

The LDS stand is that the Bible scriptures used today as canon were not complete and thus the need for various Creeds. Whoever, it is also the LDS view that G-d has never used Creeds over scripture to inform and maintain his “Saints” within their faith and covenants.

Out of curiosity, aren't the LDS "Articles of Faith" a creed?

--Erik

[THIRDpersonviewer]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

Hey Traveler, perhaps I missed it, but where does Paul say that Jesus appointed Prophets? Certainly Paul writes that some have the gift of prophecy, but I can't recall what you are saying. Jesus called John the Baptist the "greatest" (Luke 7:28) but also indicated John was the end of the era of the Prophets ("The Law and the Prophets were until John"--Luke 16:16).

Out of curiosity, aren't the LDS "Articles of Faith" a creed?

--Erik

Ephesians 4:11

The Articles of Faith is not a creed. It was a statement of what we believe, written in what is called the Wentworth letter. It is a summary of some basic doctrines that we hold to be true, and an early history of the Church. It was written to a man who was writing a history of the New Hampshire, and since the coming forth of the Church was in the proposed history, it was written to inform. It however was excluded as the author, conveniently, wrote the history up to the year 1819.

[ErikJohnson]

Originally Posted by THIRDpersonviewer

Ephesians 4:11

I definitely agree there's such a thing as the gift of prophecy and the Lord gave some to be prophets (as Ephesians 4:8-11 makes clear: "gave gifts to men... gave... some to be prophets"). But I think this serves a different use and intent than "Prophets" referred to in Luke 16:16 and elsewhere. None-the-less, I'll concede your point for the time being and not argue over Prophets vs. prophets.

The Articles of Faith is not a creed. It was a statement of what we believe, written in what is called the Wentworth letter. It is a summary of some basic doctrines that we hold to be true...QUOTE]

This would seem to qualify it as a creed, if Dictionary.com is to be believed...

--Erik

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

I definitely agree there's such a thing as the gift of prophecy and the Lord gave some to be prophets (as Ephesians 4:8-11 makes clear: "gave gifts to men... gave... some to be prophets"). But I think this serves a different use and intent than "Prophets" referred to in Luke 16:16 and elsewhere. None-the-less, I'll concede your point for the time being and not argue over Prophets vs. prophets.

This would seem to qualify it as a creed, if Dictionary.com is to be believed...

--Erik

Come, lets us reason together concerning Ephesians chapter 4. The reference in verse 8 is specific to gifts when given by Jesus as he "ascended up on high". The calling of the apostles and prophets and other officers in the organization of his church took place prior to his ascension. For example, we see that Jesus “chose” and “ordained” his apostles earlier in his ministry.

Note in verse 12 that part of the reason for those called to serve in the “Kingdom” organization was for the “work of the ministry”, verse 13 specifies that they are needed for the “unity of the faith”. Verse 14 indicates that they are necessary to prevent the Christians that follow to not be “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.”

Verses 15 and 16 are specific to the organization of the “Kingdom” and those that serve. Note the concepts of “whole body fitly joined together”

The “Articles of faith” are scripture received by a “Prophet, seer and revelator” that was also an ordained apostle – ordained by the hands of Peter, James and John.

Rather than criticize the efforts brought about by the various “councils” – I would point out that the “additional” scriptures offered by the LDS are given by revelation, unanimously sustained by the quorum of apostles and then sustained by a “solemn assembly” of the church.

The Traveler

[ErikJohnson]

Originally Posted by Traveler

Come, lets us reason together concerning Ephesians chapter 4. The reference in verse 8 is specific to gifts when given by Jesus as he "ascended up on high". The calling of the apostles and prophets and other officers in the organization of his church took place prior to his ascension. For example, we see that Jesus “chose” and “ordained” his apostles earlier in his ministry.

You seem to be putting a lot of effort into Ephesians 4, Traveler. But I don't think the word "ordain" or "ordained" even appears in the New Testament. That said, I fully agree that God bestows the gift of prophecy and gives some to be prophets--and does so for the benefit of His Church.

The “Articles of faith” are scripture received by a “Prophet, seer and revelator” that was also an ordained apostle – ordained by the hands of Peter, James and John.

Rather than criticize the efforts brought about by the various “councils” – I would point out that the “additional” scriptures offered by the LDS are given by revelation, unanimously sustained by the quorum of apostles and then sustained by a “solemn assembly” of the church.

The Traveler

Are the LDS Articles of Faith "Scripture" (and not a creed)? THIRDpersonviewer said they were merely part of a letter intended to be incorporated into a history of New Hampshire. Seems like a curious origin for Scripture. Are you sure about this?

--Erik

[Snow]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

I posted this on another thread in response to a query from a poster. But as we were a bit off-topic over there—I thought I would give it a thread of its own. The poster was challenging the legitimacy of the ancient Christian Creeds. Indeed, his signature reads: “No creed but the Bible”—as though banishment of the Creeds would somehow improve the Christian Faith.

Pastor John Piper has written a short defense of the Creeds and their use of non-Biblical language. You can find the whole article here:
Thoughts on the Sufficiency of Scripture :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

I’ll call out what I think are the most relevant parts and offer them up for comment—

My biographical message at the pastors’ conference this year was on Athanasius who was born in A. D. 298. So I spent a good bit of time studying the doctrinal disputes of the fourth century. The main dispute was over the deity of Christ. Arius (and the Arians) said that the Son of God was a creature and did not always exist. Athanasius defended the eternal deity of the Son and helped win that battle with the wording of the Council of Nicaea: “We believe in . . . the Son of God . . . of the essence of the Father, God of God, and Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.”

One surprising fact that I did not expect to find was that the heretics protested most loudly over the non-scriptural language of the orthodox creed. They pointed out that the phrases, “of one essence with the Father,” and “one substance with the Father” were not in the Bible. The heretics demanded “no creed but the Bible” precisely so that they could use biblical language to evade biblical truth. For example, they would happily call Christ “Son of God,” and then argue that, like all sons, he must have had a beginning.

...

There are many today who would demand “no creed but the Bible” the same way the Arians did. But we should learn from history that biblical language is not enough when it comes to defending the meaning of biblical language. R. P. C. Hanson explained the process like this: “Theologians of the Christian Church were slowly driven to a realization that the deepest questions which face Christianity cannot be answered in purely biblical language, because the questions are about the meaning of biblical language itself”

I think Piper makes a lot of sense here, and defends the Creeds as well as anyone I've read. And I've come to agree with him. What do others think? I’d particularly like to hear from any Latter-Day Saints (LDS) out there….
;0)

--Erik

This sounds a little nutty... "biblical language is not enough when it comes to defending the meaning of biblical language" but it misses the crux of the matter when it comes to the creeds. It's not just the language that's the problem. It's the content of the creeds. They aren't just phrased with the language of Greek philosophy, they are built with non-biblical ideas from Greek philosophy/

[jadams_4040]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

Hey Traveler, perhaps I missed it, but where does Paul say that Jesus appointed Prophets? Certainly Paul writes that some have the gift of prophecy, but I can't recall what you are saying. Jesus called John the Baptist the "greatest" (Luke 7:28) but also indicated John was the end of the era of the Prophets ("The Law and the Prophets were until John"--Luke 16:16).

Out of curiosity, aren't the LDS "Articles of Faith" a creed?

--Erik

And having seen this discussion progress along, i just would like to ask a question of you on the jhon the baptist being the greatest prophet for all those born of women, Why do you suppose that is true? You do beleive in baptism or not?

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

You seem to be putting a lot of effort into Ephesians 4, Traveler. But I don't think the word "ordain" or "ordained" even appears in the New Testament. That said, I fully agree that God bestows the gift of prophecy and gives some to be prophets--and does so for the benefit of His Church.



Are the LDS Articles of Faith "Scripture" (and not a creed)? THIRDpersonviewer said they were merely part of a letter intended to be incorporated into a history of New Hampshire. Seems like a curious origin for Scripture. Are you sure about this?

--Erik

Erik: I am glad to help you in any way I can to understand the scriptures. Concerning the ordaining of the Apostles - you might like to become more familiar with John 15:16. The King James Version (most recognized English version) uses the word “ordain”. I realize other versions use words like “appoint” but I do not think the concept of direct assignment has been lost – especially concerning his “Apostles”. BTW I recommend the Gospel of John as an important document to Christians concerning arguments use by Jesus concerning many of the noted “Christian” debates of our era – such as faith vs works.

The LDS “Articles of Faith” can be found in the LDS standard scripture work called the “Pearl of Great Price”.

The Traveler