Back to The PreteristSite Home Page
In my article answering three questions for the month of March 2005, I spent a little time discussing the purpose of the Ecumenical Creeds in light of the truth of Sola Scriptura. I argued in the opening paragraphs that it is important to have a good grasp on the overall nature of Church history in order to understand the role the Creeds play in the life of the Christian community. Upon seeing why the Creeds were formed and how they have benefited the Church already, one receives better visibility concerning the usefulness of the creeds in our contemporary context.
Since her conception the Church has been at war with unbelief. Indeed, her primary vocation given her by Christ is to wage war on the kingdom of hell, to conquer and subdue it by the power of the Christian Gospel - Matt.16:18, 28:18. The Church's commission is also evident by the proclaiming of the Gospel as the very first action taken by her after the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost -Acts 2:1-11. On this note, the idea of the Gospel itself is a politically subversive one in that it says that no one but Jesus Christ is rightful King.
It is out of these tumultuous times that the great defenses of the teachings of Christ have been produced. The epistles were each written to address various and specific problems within the Church community, namely false teachings deceiving the people of God. I Thessalonians, for example, was written to encourage the fellowship of Thessalonica who were being harshly persecuted by the Jewish leaders (remember these are the same Jews who hated the Gospel to the point of chasing Paul many miles to the city of Berea in order to persecute him) and were being told by false teachers that that Day of the Lord had already come. The letters to Timothy, which we looked at in part 1 of this series, were written to teach Timothy how to hold fast to the Gospel as a pastor of a hurting Church. Among Paul's words were instructions concerning how to respond to false teachers and the heresies they promote. Nearly every epistle written was so out of the motivation to contend against false doctrines that threatened the Church.
The contention between God's people and deception did not, however, cease after the New Testament was written. During the life of the apostles false teachers attempted to deceive the people of God by trying to discredit the apostles themselves. Afterall, the logic followed, if the messenger can be shown false so too will the message they speak. This was the case in Paul's letters to the Corinthians and to the Galatians. After the apostles deceased and the Church was better established a new tactic was needed by false teachers. Certainly no Christian would tolerate disrespect of the faithful apostles of Christ now passed on to be with the Lord, so instead it became the practice of false teachers to reinterpret the original teachings of the apostles, claiming to be representing what they actually taught.
It is in response to this heretical tactic that the Church Fathers drafted up the great creeds of the Christian faith. The Apostles Creed was drafted out of an earlier creed called the Old Roman Creed. This creed came into use just after the time of the apostles to unify the Church and was recited by new converts during their baptism. The Nicene Creed was written in 325a.d. to combat the heresy of Arianism, a heresy that denied the full deity of Jesus. The Athanasian Creed was also forged out of the fire of the Arian controversy restating and expanding upon Trinitarian orthodoxy. These creeds gave the Church a standard to refer back to as false teachers continued to claim agreement with the Bible while denying the teachings of the apostles.
Seeing history in this light there can be noticed what can be called a string of orthodoxy beginning at the teachings of Christ winding through the hands of the apostles and their epistles over the ecumenical creeds and even through the orthodox confessions and to the reformed tradition of today. Now with that analogy, some might think it demonstrates an ideology that the creeds are as authoritative as the New Testament simply because the string of orthodoxy connects them both. In response to this it must be asked that the reader understand that you are as authoritative as Christ himself when you speak his truth, for when you speak his truth and are rejected, you are not rejected, but Christ himself because you speak his truth(see Matthew 10:40). In the same way the Ecumenical Creeds are authoritative, because they submit to the absolute authority of the Holy Revelation of God.
If the Bible is seen as a powerful king who rules over a great nation, the Ecumenical Creeds are understood to serve in very much the same capacity as this king's knights. The king has declared his statutes to his subjects and desires peace and delight for them, however at times there are rebels who come into the kingdom with the intent of causing revolt. The king quickly dispatches his knights to the skirmish who without hesitation crush the rebellion. The knights are successful because they fight in the authority of their king. In the same way the Ecumenical Creeds of the Church respond to rebellions against Christian Orthodoxy. They serve to correct errors of false teaching and interpretation. A little later it will be demonstrated that the Creeds were commanded to keep order within the Church by Holy Writ, just as a king would commission his knight.
In my Irish heritage there is a lot of pride in the family shield, or family symbol. Every tribe in the land of my ancestors had a different symbol representing them. These shields are highly treasured because they serve as the sign to others as to what family one belongs to. Due to the reputation associated with it, how much wealth the family had, how powerful in battle, ect., the symbol spoke volumes about the family it represented. The Christian Community has family shields as well, the Ecumenical Creeds. The Creeds have served throughout the centuries to distinguish Christians from heretics, or those who affirm the teaching of the apostles from those who misrepresent them.
It has already been stated that the Church's primary function is to conquer the kingdom of hell by the proclamation of the Christian good news - Matt.16:18, 28:18. Now it must be asked, how exactly is the Church to do this? Or what are the strategies or traditions given to the Christian community in the Bible?
Before these questions are too deeply pondered it is important to note that creeds themselves are recorded in the New Testament. Perhaps the most famous is found in the sixteenth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, "Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’’-16:16. This is a short statement of faith, but a statement no less. In the second letter of Paul to Timothy there is this "trustworthy’ statement recorded, "If we have died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he will also deny us; if we are faithless he remains faithful...’- II Tim. 2:11-13. This second example reveals an early creedal practice of the Church even during the active ministry of the apostles. So it can be demonstrated that even in the New Testament period, creeds were already being drafted and relied upon to some degree.
That the apostolic age developed a creedal practice, is consistent with the direct instructions of the New Testament writers themselves. Jude tells the Church to "contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints’-Jude 3. Paul warns Timothy to keep a "close watch’ on "the teaching’ of the apostles (I Tim. 4:16) by maintaining "the good confession’ of Christ until the Consummation (I Tim. 6:13-15). In his second letter Paul instructs Timothy to, "[f] ollow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus’-II Tim.1: 13.
The mandates from the apostles are reflective of the task they themselves were given by Jesus, namely to teach others what he had taught them. The apostle John takes this vocation seriously when he tells his readers, "... The message we have heard from [Christ] and declare to you...’-I John 1:5 (see also John's opening statement in this same letter). And Paul reminds the Gaultic churches, "I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it from Jesus Christ.’-Gal.1: 11. The apostles John and Paul, along with the others, were obedient to the great commission given them by their resurrected Lord just before his ascension, "...go and make disciples of all nations...teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.’-Matt. 28:19&20. This tradition of teaching everything that Jesus taught his disciples has been the standard practice of Christian leaders in every generation.
Given the fact that the apostles main objective in carrying out the commission of the Church to conquer the kingdom of hell was to teach the Church exactly what Christ had taught them, we are now in a better place to understand the authority and role of the Ecumenical Creeds. The above discussed vocation of the apostles to teach sound doctrine did not belong to the early Church only, but as we see in I Timothy, to all in the Christian community until the second advent of Jesus. Paul is very clear to Timothy that the truth of God is to be found in the Church, "...God's household, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.’-I Tim.3: 15. The community of faith is the context within which one must interpret the Bible. It can be witnessed in the earliest history of the Church that the people of God followed the teachings of Christ through the apostles as a means of being a part of the community of fellowship, "They devoted themselves to the apostles teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.’-Acts 2:42. The Bible has been given to the community as it's standard of truth. It is as the "pillar and foundation of the truth’ that the Church has drafted up the Ecumenical Creeds.
The word creed comes form the Latin word credo, which simply means, I believe. As already demonstrated, a simple example of this in the New Testament is seen in Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ. Peter simply stated what he believed about Jesus. This statement by Peter is in fact a creed, an "I believe’ statement. But Peter is not the only one to have a creed or a statement of what they believe about Jesus, in fact everyone has a creed, for everyone has an opinion as to what the scriptures teach. Using this logic, it is evident that the great creeds of the Church are nothing less than the Church's statement of faith, or rather the "I believe’ statements of the Christian community.
If the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the gospels are true, the disciples of Jesus were commissioned to teach to the Church the teachings of Jesus, and the Church has stayed with this tradition as the standard practice for insuring the preservation of sound Christian teaching, then what besides the Ecumenical Creeds discussed above are the result of this Jesus given task and are accurate statements of what true Christians must believe about the Bible? The creeds seek to continue the tradition handed down from Christ as to what is true and lay out the basic tenets of true Christianity as taught in Holy Scripture. Since they are true statements of faith, they are not to ignored by anyone claiming to be a follower of Jesus the Christ. For they preserve what Jesus himself taught and believed.
Is this not to be expected in light of the promise of Jesus that he sent the Holy Spirit to, "guide you in all truth’? - John 16:13 The Ecumenical Creeds and orthodox confessions of the Church are testimonies to the faithfulness of God in keeping this promise, in that they were drafted as a response against the false teaching of the day, as is pointed out by Harold O.J.Brown concerning early Christian history:
"...for a millennium and a half the battle to preserve orthodoxy and suppress heresy was taken by almost all Christians to be a holy and necessary task. It was the task of preserving the "faith once for all delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3)’ (‘Heresies',pg.8).
It was with the conviction to perform this "task’ that the Church councils drafted up the Ecumenical Creeds.
As witnessed above, the Bible requires its adherents to have sound creeds and confessions. It is the opinion of this organization that it is impossible to obey the Bible if it is not interpreted within the context of the orthodox Christian community, the only context within which a sound doctrine is possible.
Is there really a "faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints’? For nearly two thousand years the Christian Church has believed so. This belief comes from what the Bible says Jesus taught. If we are to believe the words of Jude and trust that God has delivered a system of truth or "faith’ to his people, then we must also except that he in his providence has fulfilled his promise that he will lead his church in all truth. The people of God, though diverse, cry aloud in one accord the truth of the Christian faith, and they do this through the great creeds of their history. This is how it has been since the ascension of Christ and shall be until he returns. God bless the Creeds. Sola Scriptura.
Great article!
It is fashionable for people to try to pin Scripture against the Christian Creeds in an attempt to mislead Christ's sheep away from the faith. They are able to do this by simply ‘inviting' their hearers to following Scripture, even if following Scripture means sacrificing the Ecumenical Creeds. However, as Howell points out, such an invitation is as absurd as telling someone to love God even if it means breaking His commands. Howell proves this when he writes,
"Is there really a ‘faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints'? For nearly two thousand years the Christian Church has believed so. This belief comes from what the Bible says Jesus taught. If we are to believe the words of Jude and trust that God has delivered a system of truth or "faith’ to his people, then we must also expect that he in his providence has fulfilled his promise that he will lead his church in all truth’
And as Howell reasoned earlier in his article:
"...What besides the Ecumenical Creeds... [Could be the] result of this Jesus given task [?]’ (Howell). The answer is obvious; for every Christian has confessed the faith expressed in Ecumenical Creeds for the last two thousand years and these documents alone hold those credentials.
Excellent points. I can think of no legitimate way to get around the force of this argument without denying some teaching of Scripture and thus I pray that Christians will be more prepared the next time they encounter someone, who although claiming to follow the teachings of Scripture, tries to get them to join a cult.
I pray that God uses this argument to encourage the saints and defend the truth.
Tyler
again, begging the question.
Still awaiting when john/tyler will exegete from the Scriptures the conclusions reached in the creeds concerning a post ad70 return.
It is NO WHERE to be found in Scripture.
Neb-
I appreciate you taking time out of your busy schedule to respond.
In all respect, my article is not about the Parousia in 70a.d. The above article is about the role and authority the creeds have in the Christian community.
I did my best to demonstrate from Scripture that creedalism is a God ordained mandate, see the section entitled, ‘ A Biblical Case for Creedalism'.
Now of course, from my article it is no secret that I affirm the eschatology of the creeds, but that is for a different article coming very "soon’. :-)
Its good to hear from you. I pray the Lord continue to bless you and your family.
King Neb,
You have brought some good issues worthy of discussion to the table. You seem to argue that Howell's article is worthless because it does not contain any proof text that disproves Hyper-preterism. However, I have to respectfully disagree with your synopsis of his article and will attempt to show that Howell's argument is still good.
You seem to be what I like to call a ‘verse positivist' by ‘verse positivist’ I mean you seem to just dogmatically assume that the only way to know the meaning of Scripture is to proof text and that the proof text method is a sufficient way to come to a complete knowledge of all Scriptural doctrines. ‘Verse positivist' then uses the ‘proof text' standard alone position as an a prior reason to just throw out any argument that is not a proof text.
In contrast to this view, I believe that Scripture is sufficient for understanding normative Christian doctrine, not the proof text method. Certainly, the proof text method should be used to explore all Christian doctrines but it should not be used to solely obtain all Christian doctrines or to reject any argument about what Scripture teaches because it does not contain a proof text. I say this for two very important reasons:
1) One needs a paradigm to interpret proof texts and so one needs both a list of proof texts and the right paradigm to correctly interpret the Scripture. That is why Mormons, Arians and Gnostics are smart enough to have employed a proof text method, that is identical to the one that orthodox Christians use, but have ‘discovered' proof texts that support their heretical views. These groups may have a right method but they have the wrong paradigm and therefore come to wrong conclusions. The proof text method alone does not lead to a correct understanding of Scripture.
2) Some important and necessary Scriptural doctrines cannot be known by the proof text method. An obvious example of such a doctrine would be the Scriptural doctrine about what books belong in the Canon. After all, without knowing what books belong to the Canon one cannot even begin to use the proof text method and so knowledge of the Canon most come before knowledge obtained through the proof text method; Which shows that knowledge of the Canon is not obtained through the proof text method.
Therefore, these two reasons and more show that Christians who truly restrict themselves to just the proof text method are guaranteed to have defective theology and possibly become the next victims of heretical doctrines. That is why Christians ought to use all the resources available to them.
Howell's article shows Christians a Biblically prescribed method to knowing Scripture's teachings that compliments the proof text method but is not identical to that method. God has promised to preserve his truth throughout the ages and to sanctify His Church with that truth. God has been faithful to His promises. So, Howell correctly asks (paraphrase), "What besides the Ecumenical Creeds could even possibly contain that ‘string of orthodoxy' that has God promised to pass down through the centuries?’ Remember the string of orthodoxy is the string that allows us to know what Scripture teaches. Thus, Howell's article has shown why Christians can use the articles of faith, that Christians have always and everywhere believed, as a reliable guide to understanding and knowing what Scripture teaches.
Therefore, to just dismiss Howell's argument because it is not the proof text method is to miss Howell's entire point! I mean even if Howell did not have any proof text that will convince YOU that Christ will visibly return and consumate His kingdom on earth as the Christian Creeds teach, you must admit that Howell still has a weighty argument. Howell is just asking you to trust in all of God's promises to guide the Christian community by the truth of His Word throughout the centuries. If God's promise is not enough of an argument than what else is? I mean If you cannot trust the promise of God then what can you trust (see Howell's orginal article)? Your priviate interpretation of Scripture, which no one has seen before in the last nineteen hundred years, is that something you should trust over God's promise? I think not. I for one agree with Howell that God's promises should be trusted before I trust my own private interpretation of Scripture.
Tyler
John,
You wrote, "It is the opinion of this organization that it is impossible to obey the Bible if it is not interpreted within the context of the orthodox Christian community, the only context within which a sound doctrine is possible.’ Amen. As a Preterist, that is exactly what we have done. Notice the "community’ sets the tone of the "orthodoxy.’ Now, we also believe that the "community’ can and may err from time to time, and that, other within the community can call them on that error. As the great Louis Berkhof said, the church has "in part and in whole’ sometimes erred and past theological constructions must be abandoned in light of what he called "organic development’ of doctrine (see History of Christian Doctine, Berkhof). So, yes, it is impossible to obey the Bible APART FROM the Body of Christ, and it is impossible to intepret the Bible APART FROM the Body of Christ. However, none of this demonstrates nor proves that the Apostles' Creed is correct in all of its statements.
Samuel M. Frost
Mr. Frost said:
"So, yes, it is impossible to obey the Bible APART FROM the Body of Christ, and it is impossible to intepret the Bible APART FROM the Body of Christ. However, none of this demonstrates nor proves that the Apostles' Creed is correct in all of its statements.’
At last a relevant response!! I wholeheartedly agree with you. My article is not AT ALL an attempt to defend the truth claims of the creeds, but rather to show that, right or wrong, they are the standard for orthodoxy. And I would even now add they are the bear minimum standard.
As I have said on Neb's message board and to you personally over burgers and Fish and chips, heresy is revealed by the creeds, granting that they are the standard for orthodoxy. Truth can only be determined from the scriptures.
Or to put it another way (for James :-)):
"In most debates between orthodoxy and heresy there are two main questions worthy of consideration. One question to ask of the doctrine in question is, is this view an orthodox one? The other is, is this doctrine true? For the first, one goes to the brilliant history of the Church, to her creeds and confessions in order to see how the Bride of Christ has interpreted her Lord's Love Letter. For the second one goes to the authority of even these treasured and faithful documents of the Church, they go to the holy and inspired perfect revelation of God, the Holy Bible.’
- Taken from a "soon’ to be released article by yours truely
Sam, I am in total agreement with your above response. Also, I thankyou for taking the time to read over my article.
John Howell
Sam-
Upon further reading of your response I do have one "disagreement’.
Mr. Frost said:
"As a Preterist, that is exactly what we have done. Notice the "community’ sets the tone of the "orthodoxy.’ Now, we also believe that the "community’ can and may err from time to time, and that, other within the community can call them on that error.’
If we grant the definition of orthodoxy by the reformers and TR, that orthodxy is the historic Christian interpretation of the scriptures as laid down in the Creeds, then we really must conclude that hyper-preterism is not part of the orthodox community- it is not at all an acceptable alternative.
Is it possible for councils to err? Of course. But that isn't really the point, the ecumenical creeds have not been, are not, and never will be in "error’. The basic tenets of the Christian faith will always be just that, the Christian faith.
The hope of the future physical return of Christ has always been an integral doctrine held by the whole of the Christian community. This hope can be seen engraved on the grave stones of our ancestors and in the writings of the church in EVERY century...this great hope, the final consummation, is to be found in the creeds because it has always been the Christian hope.
I do however agree that just simply defining orthodoxy does not prove the apostles' creed, or any other creed or confession to be the truth. This can only be done by testing by the scriptures. The creeds have come out of the scriptures and therefore have continually stood the test of scripture.
I apologize for saying that I was in total agreement with the above post. I thought I was, but upon further consideration realize I am not.
I am still appreciative for your time and response.
John Howell
The Heidelberg Catechism (1563)
Question 22: What, then, is necessary for a Christian to believe?
Answer: All that is promised us in the Gospel,1 which the articles of our catholic, undoubted Christian faith teach us in sum.
1 Mt 28:19; Jn 20:30-31
Question 23. What are these Articles?
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried; He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from there He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit; a holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen
John,
The contradictions here are numerous. I will list them for you. First, you wrote, "Is it possible for councils to err? Of course. But that isn't really the point, the ecumenical creeds have not been, are not, and never will be in "error’. ’ If you cannot see your own blunder here, then I am at a loss. Can they err? "Ofcourse’ Have they erred? "They never will be in error.’ John, if they can "never’ err, then how in the world can you affirm that they have a "possibility’ for error? Surely you can admit that this is a contradiction.
Second, "I do however agree that just simply defining orthodoxy does not prove the apostles' creed, or any other creed or confession to be the truth. This can only be done by testing by the scriptures. The creeds have come out of the scriptures and therefore have continually stood the test of scripture.’ So, you admit that the statements of the creeds must be "tested’ by the Scriptures? That has been my position the ENTIRE time! Let the testing begin.
Third, Hicks just assumes (once again), begging the question by quoting the Apostles' creed. But, John, you have let the cat out of the bag: the creeds must be tested by Scriptures, and since they (’ofcourse’) may have the potentiality of error, then semper reformanda it is! Always going back and testing their statements in light of the developing understanding of the Truth. If, then, they are so derived from the Scriptures, then you should have no problems with testing them and defending them. This has been my charge all along.
Now, as for us not being apart of the community, that has not been proven at all. Rather, since you admit that they "may err’ and must be "tested’ and that the standard is Scripture, then might not some within the community have the ability to question them? Or, are you saying this: "Creeds are derived from the Scripture and can be tested by the Scripture as such. Of course, the councils that formed them may err, but we believe that they have not erred and can prove from Scripture that they are not in err. If you so challenge them (even though you can) you are not Christians. If you find an error in them from Scripture, you are not a Christian.’ If that's your view, that's still BEGGING THE QUESTION. Would you not, rather, test the position we hold to by Scripture BEFORE you condemn us to hell? As of yet, I have seen no advance made in Scripture as to this issue. Just creeds. But, since you are basically stating my position, which, by the way, over "fish and chips’ you said you agreed with, then as I said, let the testing begin. We are welcome to the table unless we are so proven wrong, not from the creeds, but from the BIBLE.
Finally, if the Creeds are derived from the Scriptures, then is it not the Scriptures that set the tone for what is orthodox and what is not?
Sam
Mr. Frost-
Question: Is the Apostles' Creed true/biblical?
I believe it is and therefore will always be true, when will some new theological insight come along to disprove the Apostles' Creed? I, as well as Christendom doubt that very much. Is it possible for councils to err and for creeds to be wrong...yes. But the Apostles Creed as well as the other Ecumenical Creeds are accurate statements of what the Bible teaches.
Sam, amen to you again pointing out that the Creeds must be tested and defended from Scripture. They have been tested time and time again. I am not saying they are not to be tested by the Word of God, I AM saying that because they have been tested time and time again, we are to adhere to them, for they have passed, and I am convinced will pass, every test they are put to.
Hyper-preterists as well as other heretics choose to believe doctrine other than what the Church believes...not to beat a dead horse...what the Church believes is found in the Ecumenical Creeds. If one is not ‘orthodox' then one becomes ‘non-orthodox' one who is non-orthodox obviously has a different opinion or believes heresy and one who believes and teaches heresy is a heretic. I am in no position to condemn ANYONE to hell, I can only observe if one believes things that are in disagreement with Christianity and are therefore outside of orthodoxy. Again, due to its heretical nature, hyper-preterism is NOT an acceptable orthodox eschatological option for the saints of God to consider.
Mr. Frost said:
"Finally, if the Creeds are derived from the Scriptures, then is it not the Scriptures that set the tone for what is orthodox and what is not?’
Sir this is exactly the case! The creeds are derived from the scriptures and therefore are approved BY the Bible. The Bible does indeed determine orthodoxy. If a creed is not biblical, it is to be rejected. Now if we are going to adopted this praxis we must also accept and adhere to those creeds that do have the approval of Scripture, if we are to be consistent in our desire for "semper reformanda’.
On this note though it is important to remind ourselves that we all interpret the scriptures within a paradigm. Tyler Hicks has proven that the hyper-preterist position adopts a different paradigm for interpreting the Bible other than the traditional Christian one and is therefore resting on a bad foundation to begin with.
grace and peace-
John Howell
Sam,
I worry that I will need to revise the Apostle's Creed from my Study of Scripture, as much, as I worry about needing to revise what books belong in the Canon because of my study of Scripture.
It would be interesting to hear a response to this line of argumentation that is an attempt to answer people who say that the Apostle's Creed possibly needs to be revised:
"...the cult leader's argument against the Orthodox use of the Ecumenical Creeds actually destroys the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. If it is true that all current doctrines a Christian subscribes to are revisable by Scripture then it is possible that all doctrines that the Christians believes could prove to be wrong, but none could be proven to be right. The reason for this is that if the Apostle's Creed could be shown to be wrong by directly comparing it with the Bible then all doctrines could potentially be shown to be wrong by direct comparison with the Bible. There is no way for the person committed to the idea that all creeds are revisable by Scripture to eliminate the possibility that tomorrow someone will not show from Scripture that their creed is wrong. In this situation of uncertainty a person must be skeptical about the truth value about their doctrines and admit that all they can do is guess about what the Bible teaches and patiently wait for someone to prove their guess wrong. The orthodox have an escape from this skepticism because they affirm the proposition that "Some creeds are not revisable by Scripture.’ However, this route of escape is not open to the cult leader because they are committed the proposition that "All beliefs are revisable by Scripture’ and thus they are led to skepticism. This skepticism is intolerable because certainly it is not reasonable for a cult member to expect an orthodox person to abandon their creeds because a particular cult leader guesses that the Bible teaches a different creed’.
Tyler
John and Tyler,
You are still saying two contrary things. John wrote, "Is it possible for councils to err and for creeds to be wrong...yes.’ That sums it up. Once this is admitted, the only standard we have for what is truth is the Scripture, which is not subject to error, not now, not ever, and not even possibly (ofcourse, I rest on the axiom that the Bible is the inspired word of God).
Now, secondly, you do not adopt to every creed and confession written (like Trent). But Trent affirms the ecumenical creeds. Why, then, do you not adopt Trent? The Roman Catholic apologist has you on your heels here (which is why many reformed folks today have turned back to Rome). Third, name the council that adopts 66 books of the Protestant Bible. These are legitimate questions. Now, if the Bible defines orthodoxy, and preterism is taught in the Bible, then preterism is orthodox regardless of how long (appeal to tradition) and how many (appeal to the people) hold otherwise. Therefore, the case cannot be decided from, and only from, the creeds to consider whether or not we are "in the faith.’ If and only if you define the faith as "according to the creeds’ (Romanism), then you can say that. Finally, you have taken two verbs in the Apostles' Creed to make us out to be heretics. The Creeds reads as I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried; He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from there He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit; a holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen. We seek to stay within this overall FRAMEWORK, but can change, in light of BIBLE. Thus, our creeds is I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried; He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from there He would come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit; a holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.
Of course, terms must be defined (welcome to theology), but this statement, and for this statement, you have us outside the true biblical faith in Jesus Christ "His only-begotten Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried; He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven,’ and that, brothers, you have to answer to God for.
Sam
Mr. Frost-
You said:
"John wrote, "Is it possible for councils to err and for creeds to be wrong...yes.’ That sums it up. Once this is admitted, the only standard we have for what is truth is the Scripture, which is not subject to error, not now, not ever, and not even possibly (ofcourse, I rest on the axiom that the Bible is the inspired word of God).’
Neither I nor Tyler have said that the Bible shares its authority with any other. The Creeds are ordained by the scriptures...therefore they are authoritative under the scripts.
You said:
’ Now, secondly, you do not adopt to every creed and confession written (like Trent). But Trent affirms the ecumenical creeds. Why, then, do you not adopt Trent? The Roman Catholic apologist has you on your heels here (which is why many reformed folks today have turned back to Rome).’
Sam, you don't adopt the council of Trent either. Why not? Because it disagrees with your theology and interpretation of scripture? The Council of Trent was not done as a council against ungodly heresy, but against the truth of the apostles teaching. It is not an Ecumenical Creed or council, but clearly out of Rome. It may affirm the basic tenets of the Christian faith, but it denies the Spirit of those tenets. Christianity is more than just the creeds...but it is not less than.
You said:
"Finally, you have taken two verbs in the Apostles' Creed to make us out to be heretics.’
Sam, I have not made you a heretic, you choose that path yourself. I am not responsible for your beliefs. And I believe that Ricky Roldan is doing an excellent job showing how those "two verbs’ in the Apostles' Creeds are a BIG deal. The bottom line is that Christianity has always hoped in the return of Christ after 70ad. This is the hope reflected in the Apostles Creed as well as every other creed and confession in Christendom! There are serious errors and ramifications in your system of theology due to you denying the Church's interpretation of scripture concerning the second coming, as Ricky is pointing out on your message board.
To deny the future and bodily return of Jesus Christ is heresy sir, this fact has been shown over and over. I am done demonstrating this at the present time. I must focus more on the scriptural inconsistencies of your system, which I will bring out in my next article.
grace and peace-
John Howell
Frost wrote: [John and Tyler] are still saying two contrary things. John wrote, "Is it possible for councils to err and for creeds to be wrong...yes.’ That sums it up. Once this is admitted, the only standard we have for what is truth is the Scripture, which is not subject to error, not now, not ever, and not even possibly (of course, I rest on the axiom that the Bible is the inspired word of God).
It is hard to see how as a Scripturists you can know what "Word’ and "God’ are apart from deducing them directly from Scripture but regardless of that apparent inconsistency. Howell and Hicks both affirm the following syllogism:
1) The Christian Creeds are true.
2) What is true is not subject to revision or error.
3) Therefore, the Christian Creeds are not subject to revision or error.
Frost, by arguing that the Christian Creeds are subject to error you must be assuming either premise one or premise two to be false. If you just assume that premise one is false than your argument is begging the question because Howell and Hicks do not share that assumption.
Therefore, let us begin ask the question "Is it rational to believe that the Christian Creeds are true?’ The difference between rationality and truth has been described as follows:
"Rationality is a matter of how one believes, not what one believes. Rationality is not identical with truth since a person may hold a belief for "good reasons’ and yet believe what is false’ (Kelly Clark)
Now, what it takes to make a belief rational? Kelly Clark answers that question when he writes:
"We ought to trust the beliefs produced by our cognitive faculties in the appropriate circumstances unless we have good reason to reject them’ (Clark)
Now, Howell has explained that the historic process that produced the Creeds is Biblically prescribed and is reliability is ensured by a promise from God. Hence the doctrines of the Creeds are produced by "cognitive faculties’ in the "appropriate circumstances.’ Therefore, we ought to trust them unless we have a good reason to reject them. A "good reason’ would be a logical contradiction in the creeds. Now Hyper-preterists have not be able to show that the Orthodox position contains a contradiction and so even if Hyper-preterism and the Christian position are both formally logically coherent interpretations of Scripture, in the absence of any contradiction, it is rational to believe the Christian interpretation over the hyper-preterist system. After all the Hyper-preterist system was produced in someone's back yard in the early part of the ninetheen century and went against all of Church history.
Frost wrote: "Why, then, do you not adopt Trent?’ (Frost)
Reformed Christians use the traditional interpretation of Scripture to affirm the Christian Creeds and discover the Christian Canon. This traditional interpretation of Scripture is also the reason that we deny the Council of Trent's innovations. This traditional interpretation of Scripture has been with the Christian community for the last two thousand years. The Reformers simply called the Church back from its innovations and ‘Re-formed' the Church around the traditional interpretation of Scripture.
The real question is why do you accept one and not the other? Do you have the super-human ability to obtain the meaning of Scripture through a ‘creedal neutral reading' of proof texts? If not then what is your reason for choosing one and not the other? When it comes to the issue of Hyper-preterism has the Holy Spirit illuminated you to the truth but been misleading the rest of us for the last two thousand years?
If it is the traditional interpretation of Scripture that causes you to accept one and not the other then why not use that same traditional interpretation of Scripture to reject Hyper-preterism?
Frost wrote: "Third, name the council that adopts 66 books of the Protestant Bible. These are legitimate questions’.
Taken from a pamphlet entitled "Where we got our Bible’: "The Books of the Bible were collected and arranged and recognized as inspired sacred authority by councils of rabbis and councils of Church leaders based on careful guidelines’ "The New Testament books are collected and circulated throughout the Mediterranean about the time of Constantine, the Roman Emperor who legalizes Christianity in AD 313. By AD 400 the standard of the 27 books is accepted in the East and West as confirmed by Athanasius, Jerome, Augustine and the Church councils. The 27 books of the New Testament were formally confirmed as canonical by the Synod of Carthage in AD 397, thus recognizing three centuries of use by followers of Christ’
Now since you wrote: Is it possible for councils to err and for creeds to be wrong...yes.’ That sums it up. Once this is admitted, the only standard we have for what is truth is the Scripture, which is not subject to error, not now, not ever, and not even possibly (Frost)
Then what is the verse that says these 66 books belong in the Canon? If you cannot produce one than you must give up the books or become a Creedalist.
Frost wrote: "Finally, you have taken two verbs in the Apostles' Creed to make us out to be heretics... and that, brothers, you have to answer to God for’ (Frost)
The differences between Hyper-preterism and Christianity is not just that one changes a few verbs but the whole system of doctrine. Kenneth Gentry list the following examples of essential doctrines that divide the two systems:
1) The second advent of Christ, 2) The resurrection of the dead, 3) The resurrection body, 4) the final judgment, 5) the consummation, 6) The Holy Spirit's work, 7) The Trinity, 8) The doctrine of Hell, 9) The role of Satan, 10) The Gospel of Christ.
Kenneth Gentry: Conclusion. Stevens muses: "I am surprised at Gentry's heritancy to believe the historic Church could have missed a few things’ (RGA). A "few things’? Hyper-preterism, untethered from the anchor of historic Christianity, is being blown about by every wind of doctrine. The hyper-preterist will not be able to stop the destructive winds by arbitrarily crying out, "Peace! Be still!’ We will increasingly witness Hymenaean shipwrecks littering the hyper-preterist shores, whever its waters may flow. McGrath aptly warns: "Heresy is thus clearly seen to be a defective version of Christianity, in the senst that it accepts the major premises of faith- which distinguishes it from unbelief, or non-Christian beliefs. But precisely because it is inadequate, it poses a threat to Christianity... Heresy is simply second rate Christianity. And... Hyper-preterism is hersy’
In Grace and Truth,
Tyler Hicks
Tyler,
In denying that the Apostles' Creed are not subject to error, you disagree with John Howell. He EXPLICITLY answered his own question: "Is it possible for councils to err and for the creeds to be wrong? Yes.’ Also, Tyler, you deny the Westminster Confession on this point (31.3). They "have’ and "may err.’ I am simply affirming Sola Scriptura. You have been denying it all along. You pay lip service to it. It's utterly amazing.
Samuel Frost
Tyler,
One other thing. You might want to understand a little more history. Yes, the 27 NT books were accepted in 400, but the Augustinian "list’ was also made authoritive for the OT, containing the APOCRYPHA as the "words of God.’ Augustine's list became the norm (see F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, page 95). So, how do you know those books, universally accepted, are not in the canon?
Sam
Frost wrote:
"In denying that the Apostles' Creed are not subject to error, you disagree with John Howell. He EXPLICITLY answered his own question: "Is it possible for councils to err and for the creeds to be wrong? Yes.’ Also, Tyler, you deny the Westminster Confession on this point (31.3). They "have’ and "may err.’ I am simply affirming Sola Scriptura. You have been denying it all along. You pay lip service to it. It's utterly amazing’ (Frost)
It is hard to see how as a Scripturists you can know what "Word’ and "God’ are apart from deducing them directly from Scripture but regardless of that apparent inconsistency. Howell and Hicks both affirm the following syllogism:
1) The Apostle's Creed is true.
2) What is true is not subject to revision or error.
3) Therefore, the Apostle's Creeds is not subject to revision or error.
Frost, by arguing that the Apostle's Creed is subject to error you must be assuming either premise one or premise two to be false. If you just assume that premise one is false than your argument is begging the question because Howell and Hicks do not share that assumption.
Therefore, let us begin by asking the question "Is it rational to believe that the Apostle's Creeds is true?’ The difference between rationality and truth has been described as follows:
"Rationality is a matter of how one believes, not what one believes. Rationality is not identical with truth since a person may hold a belief for "good reasons’ and yet believe what is false’ (Kelly Clark)
Now, what does it take to make a belief rational? Kelly Clark answers that question when he writes:
"We ought to trust the beliefs produced by our cognitive faculties in the appropriate circumstances unless we have good reason to reject them’ (Clark)
Now, Howell has explained that the historic process that produced the Apostle's Creed is Biblically prescribed and that it's reliability is ensured by a promise from God. Hence the doctrines of the Creeds are produced by "cognitive faculties’ in the "appropriate circumstances.’ Therefore, we ought to trust them unless we have a good reason to reject them. A "good reason’ would be a logical contradiction in the Apostle's creeds. Now Hyper-preterists have not be able to show that the Orthodox position contains a contradiction and so even if Hyper-preterism and the Christian position are both formally logically coherent interpretations of Scripture, in the absence of any contradiction, it is rational to believe the Christian interpretation over the hyper-preterist system. After all the Hyper-preterist system was produced in someone's back yard in the early part of the ninetheen century and went against all of Church history.
As for the question about what the Reformed view is of the Apostle's Creed. I do not contradict the Westminster divines, in fact, I agree with them that Councils can error and have errored, but I also agree with them when they said that the Apostle's Creed is the "sum of Christian faith.’ It is the Hyper-preterist that cannot affirm both statements and therefore contradict the Westminster divines. Frost the Westminster Confession Also consider the following qoutes:
...................
John Calvin: [The Apostle's Creed] "sums up in a few words the main points of our redemption, and thus may serve as a tablet for us upon which we see distinctly and point by point the things in Christ that we ought to heed... As far back as men can remember it was certainly held to be of sacred authority among the godly’
The Heidelberg Catechism (1563)
Question 22: What, then, is necessary for a Christian to believe?
Answer: All that is promised us in the Gospel,1 which the articles of our catholic, undoubted Christian faith teach us in sum.
1 Mt 28:19; Jn 20:30-31
Question 23. What are these Articles?
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried; He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from there He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit; a holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen
....................
Thus is should be obvious who is not following the Reformed tradition and who is.
Tyler Hicks
Frost wrote:
"One other thing. You might want to understand a little more history. Yes, the 27 NT books were accepted in 400, but the Augustinian "list’ was also made authoritive for the OT, containing the APOCRYPHA as the "words of God.’ Augustine's list became the norm (see F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, page 95). So, how do you know those books, universally accepted, are not in the canon? (Frost)’
In answer to your question: Actually I already new that information about the Old Testament but I need to point out that I said that this is where our New Testament Canon came from. So, where did we get our Old Testament Canon? In 90 A.D. a council of Rabbis formulated the Old Testament Canon that Protestant's use and that Canon does not contain those other books that Church councils wrongly included. The reason that Augustine errored was because he thought that the Jews did include those books and so he made a factual mistake, but it would be interesting to see what would have happened if Augustine had had his facts right. We choose to follow the Jewish Canon because of Paul's statement in Romans 3 about God giving the Jews the "Oracles of God.’
So, since we are in agreement that a church council and rabbi council formalized our Canon, then I think I am entitled to hear an answer to my question:
Now since you wrote: Is it possible for councils to err and for creeds to be wrong...yes.’ That sums it up. Once this is admitted, the only standard we have for what is truth is the Scripture, which is not subject to error, not now, not ever, and not even possibly (Frost)
Then what is the verse that says these 66 books belong in the Canon? If you cannot produce one than you must give up the books or become a Creedalist and trust the Creeds that Christians have always used and held because those Creeds came about through the same process that our Canon did.
Tyler Hicks
Tyler,
If you cannot see your own blunder here, then I cannot be of much help. You quote a council to include 27 books, and that same council, how did you say, "erred’ in including the apocrypha....Did the "holy spirit led council’ err? In the Council of Carthage, Canon 24, the Holy Spirit led this Council to affirm the apocrypha.....but, you say he did lead them to include the 27, but not the apocrypha....Tyler....please.
Samuel Frost
Back to The PreteristSite Home Page