A Creed & the Holy Spirit?

[Gregory Matthews]

See:

http://atoday.org/nailing-down-the-holy-spirit/

[CoAspen]

Very interesting.......

Quote

The Bible contains divine truths, but it is an introduction to truth, not all truth. The Bible is a light to our path, not a fence to prevent us from moving forward and upward closer and closer to Heaven.

 

[Gail]

I have thought that by having the creed set down for us then it can limit our path that the Holy Spirit is guiding us down. This might be one reason that people don't talk more of the way God has taken them personally.

[CoAspen]

Quote

... talk more of the way God has taken them personally.

Our pastors current series is on the very subject you mention. Christ talked to others with stories of what could happen or as answers to questions. The pastor is asking people to tell the stories that have impacted their lives rather than telling others what they should do. One of his illustrations was the prodigal son story. He told it in a way that you might hear it today from a person. It was very moving. The story was in response to the question of 'Tell us about God'. 

It is said that the Bible is 75% stories, 15% poetry and only 10% instruction.

[Gustave]

The Nicene Creed "systematizes" Sacred Scripture & as such any Church organization that rejects it - well.....

James White was a militant anti-Trinitarian who took great pleasure in calling literally every "Christian Creed" he could get his hands on - apostate.

Is it reasonable to say James White is an authority why SDA's didn't have a creed?

[Gregory Matthews]

The following is the Nicene Creed:   NOTE:  As it is a translated document, there are some very minor differences in the English versions>

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen. 

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end. 

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

[Gustave]

To SDA's grant that the creed is "orthodox"?  I thought SDA's now had a creed? No?

 

[Gregory Matthews]

The official position of the SDA denomination is that we do NOT have a creed.

Nonsense!    Our creed has become the so called  28 or 29, or whatever the latest is.

 

 

[Gustave]

I understood, from past discussions on this issue, that the strike-through portion below was ( or still is ) incompatible with vital SDA belief:

"On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures".

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave:  No.  The official SDA position is that Christ died on Friday and  rose from the dead on Sunday, or the 3rd day.

NOTE:  Of course, I am using the common names, today, for the days of the week.  I am not suggesting that those days were so named in the time of Christ.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Wanderer:

1)  Historically, I also have had no problem with the SDA denomination having a creed.  And, I have had no problem with saying that the so-called 28 are a creed.  Such fits the common definition of a creed.

2)  "With the passage of time the 28 have become more and more used  in the manner of a historic creed.  It is that with which I am very much opposed.  It is wrong, I believe and    it is clear that  those  who wrote the book never intended it to be so used.

3)  As to your definition of the word creed:  For a creed to be Biblical will depend on what is considered to be Biblical.  SDAs commonly have some problems with  some of the historicl Christian creeds.  

E.G.  Traditional SDAs cannot agree with the phrase "communion of the saints"  that is found in some (Apostles Creed) of the historic creeds.   

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave:  No.  The official SDA position is that Christ died on Friday and  rose from the dead on Sunday, or the 3rd day.

NOTE:  Of course, I am using the common names, today, for the days of the week.  I am not suggesting that those days were so named in the time of Christ.

 

 

 

I was referring to the peccability issue - as in it wasn't a certainty Jesus would even rise from the dead.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

O.K.  I now understand you.

 

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

O.K.  I now understand you.

 

I was in the Military between 1991 - 1995 & for the majority of the time stationed at Ft. Stewart Ga.

There was a Chaplain there ( forgot his name ) who served the 24th I.D. & also ran a SDA Church in Savannah.

He invited me to attend it but unfortunately I never carved out the time to do it.

I bet you were a good Chaplain!

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Thank you, and for both.  Maybe, I can get the name of that chaplain?

 

 

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Thank you, and for both.  Maybe, I can get the name of that chaplain?

 

 

I can't remember - at that point in my life I was pretty rough, wasn't really living as a Christian or even trying too.

[Gregory Matthews]

When I wrote that, I was thinking that I could contact someone who might know who the chaplain was.  After thinking about it some more, I think that I was wrong.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

A Creed is Biblical if it correctly reflects the Biblical teaching on that doctrine.  What some people consider to be Biblical teachings are considered by others to be false doctrine.  And example, as I stated would be the "communion of the saints," phrase.  The historic Catholic teaching on that point, as was understood at the time it was placed in certain creeds, is not in accord with what we SDAs and some Protestants believe on this subject.  Some Protestants today, have attempted to re-define the meaning of the phrase to better fit their Biblical understanding.  O.K.  But, such is a rejection of the common understanding of its meaning at the time it was placed in the creed.

In the manner of a creed: Historically creeds developed, at least in part, from an attempt to meet the challenge of some new doctrine thought to be false.  So,  Once the creed was developed it became the standard by which one was determined to be either orthodox of a believer in false doctrine.  In the beginning, with the so-called 27, those 27 were not supposed to be the standard by which people could be determined to either be within the true SDA family or to be outside of it.  Today, the 218 (Possibly soon to be 29) are often being used to divide and determine  who are outside the true Adventist faith.

 I do not intend to be specific in what I say next.  The so-called 28 presents, in some cases a teaching which I happen to believe, but I do not believe that the Bible, which is our standard, is totally clear and convincing on that issue.  Therefore, I am very uncomfortable with the 28 being used to determine who lies outside of true Adventism, which is  NOT what the original writers wanted to do.

 Further, I believe that we should allow the HS to work on individuals and not go beyond that leading when we evaluate the beliefs of someone else.

 

 

[Green Cochoa]

11 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

A Creed is Biblical if it correctly reflects the Biblical teaching on that doctrine.

I'm less persuaded.  The word "creed" doesn't appear in my Bible, and Mrs. White told me to have no creed outside of the Bible itself.  Our Adventist creed is a step toward apostasy according to our pioneers, and having seen the manner it which it is increasingly regarded and used, I agree with them.  James White adamantly opposed creeds, and Ellen said we should have no other than the Bible.  Our AFB book, adopted officially as a creed and used as one, goes against the Spirit of Prophecy.

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

It sounds like God has straightened you out a little. Thats a good thing! PTL!

Actually a lot - & has more work to do on me than He already has done.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green, please note that I did not say that we should have a creed.  What I said was to the effect that the teachings of a creed were Biblical if, and only if, those teachings were in accord with the Biblical teachings.

In any case, you and I do agree, as I understand you, that the so-called 28 is often being used today in a manner that is not appropriate.

 

[Gustave]

5 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

I'm less persuaded.  The word "creed" doesn't appear in my Bible, and Mrs. White told me to have no creed outside of the Bible itself.  Our Adventist creed is a step toward apostasy according to our pioneers, and having seen the manner it which it is increasingly regarded and used, I agree with them.  James White adamantly opposed creeds, and Ellen said we should have no other than the Bible.  Our AFB book, adopted officially as a creed and used as one, goes against the Spirit of Prophecy.

What if Mr. & Mrs. James White promulgated a teaching as vital that turned out to be contrary to Scripture?

[Gregory Matthews]

Wanderer said in the quote below:

1)  Yes, you are correct as to the intent of the authors of the book and it is that position that I take.  We agree.

2)  However, this book is being widely used in a manner that was never intended by those who wrote it.  It is being used as a rigid standard to define who is a true SDA and who is not.  The is the same as the historic creeds that were used to define who was a true Christian and who was not.  

3)  It is rigid in the sense that it can only be changed by a vote of the General conference in session.  That is the same as the historic creeds that could only be changed by a church council voting a new version.

4)  It should be noted that in the books, it is only the short paragraphs that have been voted by the  General Conference in session.  The expanded sections that follows those short paragraphs have not been voted by the General Conference is session.  Yet, in actual practice those expanded sections are being given expanded authority.

5)  There are some beliefs that I hold that I believe are taught by the  Bible, but I also believe that they may not have 100% clarity and therefore, there may be honest people who will differ with me as to what the Bible teaches.   I am comfortable with this as I believe that God expects us to study in depth and such differences in belief promote in-depth study.  One of my concerns about the so-called 28 or proposed 29, is that they, in my thinking attempt to lock into concrete some of these doctrinal positions beyond what the Bible is explicit and clear.

 

Quote

So this brings me to my first of several points of disagreement. As far as i can tell, there is nothing in any FB book about "the Creed" and how it is all written in stone, not open to correction, or to additional light. It is quite the contrary. The authors of such books, I believe, do take that point seriously, and they have been making sure to let people know why the book was published, and suggestions on how to use it. I see no problem with writing out a book like this, for such purposes. How about you? Am I resonating somehow here?

 

[Stan]

OK  this is a sample of a creed...  what we have for the '28' is a set of generally agreed upon Fundamental beliefs

Quote

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
      creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
      who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
      and born of the virgin Mary.
      He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
      was crucified, died, and was buried;
      he descended to hell.
      The third day he rose again from the dead.
      He ascended to heaven
      and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
      From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
      the holy catholic* church,
      the communion of saints,
      the forgiveness of sins,
      the resurrection of the body,
      and the life everlasting. Amen.

*that is, the true Christian church of all times and all places

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

The creed that Stan has quoted above is The Apostles Creed.

For reasons that I have stated before in this thread, the SDA denomination rejects that creed.  No traditional SDA can accept it in the understanding that it historically has.  Any SDA acceptance of that creed would require defining it in terms that differ from its historic understanding.

For a creed that SDAs could accept, see my previous post on page  1 of this thread.

NOTE:  Just because it is named, The Apostles Creed, does not either mean that it is what the apostles believed or that it is Biblical.