A Creed & the Holy Spirit?

[Gregory Matthews]

1)  Stan is correct, he has presented a historic creed.  I have never challenged that.

2)  For many years, I used the so-called 27/28 as a foundation for Bible study, and often gave people that book.  There is  clear value, including today, on the 28.

Wanderer, you and I seem not to be communicating very clearly.  You seem to be challenging me on points where I agree with you.  I am not  one to simply repost what I have written.  I am uncertain as to how to communicate with you in a clearer fashion. 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Maybe (?) this will help make it a bit better understood:

The original 27 was a book of about 400 pages, total.  The individual chapters, to some extent presented the diversity that existed within the SDA denomination.  As such, I used it in Bible studies to help people to understand the complexity that existed and the range of beliefs that people had who were still considered to be good Adventists.

As I practiced ministry, this book was a teaching tool.  But, it did not constitute a standard that people had to measure up to in order to become/remain SDAs.  That standard, in my practice of ministry consisted of the 13 Baptismal Vows.

 In ancient history, creeds were more than a teaching tool,.  They served as a rigid standard by which the Church could judge whether or not a member was orthodox, or had departed from the true faith.

All to many people today attempt to use the so-called 28 as such a rigid standard.  No, you will not find that as a printed objective in the introduction to the book.  but, that is how many people today attempt to use it.

It is on that basis that many people object  to the book.  the Bible alone should be our standard by which we determine whether or not one is a true member of the faith.

 

 

.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Wanderer, In answer to your questions and numbered, for clarity:

1a)  I Do not suggest that the  so called 28 should not be written out and used.  I believe that they still have value.  I believe that they still have value as a teaching tool.  However, it is always appropriate to ask the extent to which the boo9k reflects the diversity that exists within the denomination.  From that perspective, whale useful as a teaching tool, it may be necessary to be supplement with additional information.  

1b)  As to who should change it:  Votes of the GC in session are by nature votes as to what the delegates believe should be taught.  There are plenty of local  pastors and scholars who better understand what is actually believed by members in the local congregations.  In the beginning, with the 27, the expanded chapters attempted, with some success, even if not perfect, to reflect that actual situation in the local congregations.

  2)  I cannot argue with what you say is your experience.  But that is not my experience.  My comments are based upon what I see in some congregations who wish to require adherence to the  28, rather than the 13 in issues related to membership.  I see it in a subset of denominational leaders.  Again, I consider the book to be of value.  My issue is with how some people use it.

3) I am not aquainted with the book you cite.  I can only assume as to what it is.  If it actually contains some 13 historical creeds, it contains statements of belief, as I have stated in past posts, that understood in their historic meaning violate SDA doctrinal understanding..  So, I hope that at your baptism you did not state that you believed them.  However, if the book contains the actual 13 baptismal vows, what I have just said, would not apply.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

The following mentions a 1977 publication by Richard C. Nies that discusses some of these issues:

 http://www.worldcat.org/title/creeds-and-things/oclc/874862624&referer=brief_results

The following quote tells us a bit about the publication.

Quote

Starts with comments by a General Conference vice-president, Willis J. Hackett, who wrote an editorial published in the Review and herald on May 26, 1977, entitled "Preserve the landmarks." In the editorial he observes that Adventists have always been opposed to having a creed. Hackett's point is that the church holds to a core of teachings that are non-negotiable, but are being eroded by liberalism in the church. He suggests that a set of statements be drawn up to help preserve those landmark teachings covering the topics of a) a literal creation, 'b) the age of the earth, and c) revelation and inspiration. The reason for this is that church leaders, administraters, and church boards can evaluate their workers as to their commitment to Adventism. Nies strongly objects to this because he states that having this process of evaluation is the same as establishing a creed, the very thing that Adventists have disavowed. His presentation is divided into five parts: 1) evaluation of the nature of creeds, 2) the rationale for having creeds, 3) the problems with having a creed or creeds, 4) suggestions for handling the problems of having creeds, and 5) objections to his position and answers to those objections.

[LifeHiscost]

As Adventist, I have a creed. It's found in the Word.

9“Who does the Lord think we are?” they ask.

“Why does he speak to us like this?

Are we little children,

just recently weaned?

10He tells us everything over and over—

one line at a time,

one line at a time,

a little here,

and a little there!”

11So now God will have to speak to his people

through foreign oppressors who speak a strange language!

12God has told his people,

“Here is a place of rest;

let the weary rest here.

This is a place of quiet rest.”

But they would not listen.

13So the Lord will spell out his message for them again,

one line at a time,

one line at a time,

a little here,

and a little there,

so that they will stumble and fall.

They will be injured, trapped, and captured.

14Therefore, listen to this message from the Lord,

you scoffing rulers in Jerusalem.

15You boast, “We have struck a bargain to cheat death

and have made a deal to dodge the grave.^c

The coming destruction can never touch us,

for we have built a strong refuge made of lies and deception.”

16Therefore, this is what the Sovereign Lord says:

“Look! I am placing a foundation stone in Jerusalem,^d

a firm and tested stone.

It is a precious cornerstone that is safe to build on.

Whoever believes need never be shaken.^e

17I will test you with the measuring line of justice

and the plumb line of righteousness.

Isaiah 28 NLT

It works for me, though sometimes very uncomfortably.

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

[LifeHiscost]

…3They all ate the same spiritual food 4and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them, for they were struck down in the wilderness.… 1 Corinthians 10

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

[Enabled]

On 2/22/2017 at 4:59 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

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.   

I wish to concur Gregory; especially on point (2), it has been clearly stated in some past editions, and church commentaries  on the 27/28 and previous editions of statements of faith.

Sadly our local congregation too is divided on this point and a number of us have found ourselves separated from fellowship by a spirit of intolerance as we would not take our round of facilitating classes at times due to the content of some of the recent Quarterlies. In addition the desire for us to edify the view points of the first 3 lessons of the current  quarter has been strong enough as a result not of our outspokenness as such but our current silence being taken as a rebuke. Can't win for loosing; condemned for speaking our mind, silenced for being silent or in many cases voiced only absence from Sabbath school all together.

I don't believe that the spirit of Christ as seen in his life was such.

I always appreciate your balanced/fare view expressed on matters even when I don't agree with your conclusions on the topic being studied.

Happy Sabbath.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Enabled]

4 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I think there is likely two sides to the story you reference here; but I can agree that it is unfortunate that people are "separated from fellowship" because they do not think the same.

I agree with you about Gregory  However, I think his point #2 above can become a subjective matter, because people on both sides, if you will, are separating themselves from fellowship and just not willing to get along.

Three sides as is often the case Wander as life is often three "D" more complex and not a coin with only two sides. 

(1)Side one believes that the doctrines as found in the 27/28 as Gregory was pointing out are to be treated as a creed as Loughborough and James White and company feared.  

(2)Side two carries a more traditional view ( read historical SDA)  no creed but the bible and believes in tolerance of all and finds freedom of personal conviction more relative and important and desires to keep on studying until we all come into agreement. (Believes this to be critical to mission and through prayer possible.)

(3)Side three can't see  why we can't all just agree to disagree and carry on enjoying fellowship and spreading the good news.

Side 2 and 3 have a number of members in common.

Side one  is adamant that we all must (a)accept the Fundies or hit the road as one elder of prominance put it, or for some option:(b) keep a muzzle on your contrary to fundies beliefs as they don't want to see this split the church.

Strange thing is the group that has most of the lifers; 2nd or 3rd generation SDA's in it are in group (2) as well as a number of new people and group (1) is mainly members of 30 years or less only one member in this group was raised as an SDA.

Meant to be in general and by no means other than how I see it.  I agree especially with what you said above "unfortunate".

Enjoy the Sabbath Day.

[B/W Photodude]

https://www.women.com/melissaedwards/quiz-youll-only-pass-this-apostles-creed-test-if-youre-a-true-catholic

Oh my!

[Gregory Matthews]

Very simple.   Most Christians should get 100%.

[JoeMo]

On ‎2‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 5:02 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

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 (from the Nicean Creed)

"Current HOT TOPIC is Creed and the Holy Spirit. We are waiting for comments from you JoeMo "

Well here it is!

This creed was the result of the Council of Nicea called by Constantine in 325 AD; and dealt mostly with formalizing a belief system.  At that time, there was no such thing as a "pope", the Immaculate Conception, the assumption of Mary into heaven, Mary being "Queen of heaven, Transubstantiation, etc.

"The council of Nicaea dealt primarily with the issue of the deity of Christ. Over a century earlier the term "Trinity" (Τριάς in Greek; trinitas in Latin) was used in the writings of Origen  (185–254) and Tertullian  (160–220), and a general notion of a "divine three", in some sense, was expressed in the second century writings of Polycarp, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr. In Nicaea, questions regarding the Holy Spirit were left largely unaddressed until after the relationship between the Father and the Son was settled around the year 362.  So the doctrine in a more full-fledged form was not formulated until the Council of Constantinople in 360 AD, and a final form formulated in 381 AD, primarily crafted by Gregory of Nyssa." Wikipedia "Nicean Council". 

The only issue I have is that I still take the stand that the Holy Spirit is not a "Person" (sentient, independent being) like the Father or Jesus.  The Hebrew Word most commonly used in the OT for "Spirit is ruach - meaning breath or wind.  In the NT, the Greek Word is pneumos, which also means breath or wind.  breath and wind are not personalities; they are forces on nature (or "supernature" in the case of the Holy Spirit).  Just as the wind can influence your decisions of what to do out doors, the spirit of Christ can influence your decisions of what to do with your heart.  neither is an "intelligent person", but both can influence you.

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, JoeMo said:

"Current HOT TOPIC is Creed and the Holy Spirit. We are waiting for comments from you JoeMo "

Well here it is!

This creed was the result of the Council of Nicea called by Constantine in 325 AD; and dealt mostly with formalizing a belief system.  At that time, there was no such thing as a "pope",

Was Sylvester 1 a figment of imagination?

[JoeMo]

The article you posted from the Britannica states that neither Constantine nor his successors gave any official recognition to papal supremacy over the church.  "Pope" Sylvester didn't even attend the Council of Nicea - indicating his lack of interest in the whole affair.

 

According to Wikipedia:

" Long after his death, the figure of Sylvester was embroidered upon in a fictional account of his relationship to Constantine, which seemed to successfully support the later Gelasian doctrine of papal supremacy, papal auctoritas (authority) guiding imperial potestas (power), the doctrine that is embodied in the forged Donation of Constantine of the eighth century. In the fiction, of which an early version is represented in the early sixth-century Symmachean forgeries emanating from the curia of Pope Symmachus (died 514), the Emperor Constantine was cured of leprosy by the virtue of the baptismal water administered by Sylvester."

Only Catholic "fiction" gives this "pope" any credibility.

[Gustave]

10 hours ago, JoeMo said:

The article you posted from the Britannica states that neither Constantine nor his successors gave any official recognition to papal supremacy over the church.  "Pope" Sylvester didn't even attend the Council of Nicea - indicating his lack of interest in the whole affair.

 

According to Wikipedia:

" Long after his death, the figure of Sylvester was embroidered upon in a fictional account of his relationship to Constantine, which seemed to successfully support the later Gelasian doctrine of papal supremacy, papal auctoritas (authority) guiding imperial potestas (power), the doctrine that is embodied in the forged Donation of Constantine of the eighth century. In the fiction, of which an early version is represented in the early sixth-century Symmachean forgeries emanating from the curia of Pope Symmachus (died 514), the Emperor Constantine was cured of leprosy by the virtue of the baptismal water administered by Sylvester."

Only Catholic "fiction" gives this "pope" any credibility.

Do you deny that there were Pope's prior to Sylvester or that Rome didn't have the office of Bishop?

[JoeMo]

13 hours ago, Gustave said:

Do you deny that there were Pope's prior to Sylvester or that Rome didn't have the office of Bishop?

I don't deny that there were bishops of Rome prior to Sylvester; nor do I deny that - since Rome was the most powerful city in Europe - that the bishop if Rome was a powerful position.  But his power was limited to Rome until after the 5th century.  According to study.com:

"Starting in the 5th century, the powerful bishop of Rome (i.e. the pope) starting putting forth the Petrine Doctrine, which stated that Jesus wished St. Peter - and therefore, all bishops of Rome after him - to head the entire Church.  At this time, the Roman Empire had collapsed in Western Europe, and there was not a lot of long distance communication. Not only did few people take notice of the doctrine, but it was practically impossible to enforce anyway."

Eventually, the Petrine Doctrine became the prevalent belief in the church.  The word "pope" is derived from the Italian word "papa" (which is still what Italians call him) which simply means "father"; but "the pope" was not recognized as the head of the entire Christian church until over 100 years after the council of Nicaea.  Most Christians believe that Peter was the first "pope" or bishop of Rome.  That is highly unlikely.  It is easy to infer from the Book of Acts that James was considered to be the "leader" of the early church rather than Peter.  I'm pretty sure that scripture never mentions Peter being in Rome.  In Paul's epistle to the Romans in Ch. 16, , he greets 27 people specifically.  Peter is not among them.  It seems if Peter were the bishop if Rome and the head of the church, Paul would have sent greetings to him out of courtesy, if nothing else.

[Gustave]

On ‎3‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 7:25 AM, JoeMo said:

I don't deny that there were bishops of Rome prior to Sylvester; nor do I deny that - since Rome was the most powerful city in Europe - that the bishop if Rome was a powerful position.  But his power was limited to Rome until after the 5th century.  According to study.com:

"Starting in the 5th century, the powerful bishop of Rome (i.e. the pope) starting putting forth the Petrine Doctrine, which stated that Jesus wished St. Peter - and therefore, all bishops of Rome after him - to head the entire Church.  At this time, the Roman Empire had collapsed in Western Europe, and there was not a lot of long distance communication. Not only did few people take notice of the doctrine, but it was practically impossible to enforce anyway."

Eventually, the Petrine Doctrine became the prevalent belief in the church.  The word "pope" is derived from the Italian word "papa" (which is still what Italians call him) which simply means "father"; but "the pope" was not recognized as the head of the entire Christian church until over 100 years after the council of Nicaea.  Most Christians believe that Peter was the first "pope" or bishop of Rome.  That is highly unlikely.  It is easy to infer from the Book of Acts that James was considered to be the "leader" of the early church rather than Peter.  I'm pretty sure that scripture never mentions Peter being in Rome.  In Paul's epistle to the Romans in Ch. 16, , he greets 27 people specifically.  Peter is not among them.  It seems if Peter were the bishop if Rome and the head of the church, Paul would have sent greetings to him out of courtesy, if nothing else.

You are aware that the Orthodox Church rejects "Papal Supremacy" yet at the same time concedes Peter was indeed the first Bishop of Rome?

[JoeMo]

24 minutes ago, Gustave said:

You are aware that the Orthodox Church rejects "Papal Supremacy" yet at the same time concedes Peter was indeed the first Bishop of Rome?

Yes.  I am also aware that there are 10 times more Roman Catholics than there are Orthodox Catholics, giving the RCC view as prevalent (that doesn't mean it's correct).

There are splinter groups of "Adventists" that reject one or more of the 28 fundamentals; and have splintered off into "Reformed" Adventists, "Historical" Adventists, "Davidian" Adventists (Shepherd's Rod), Sadventists, Madventists, Gladventists, etc., etc. Fortunately, there are 10 times more conventional Adventists than there are splinter group Adventists.

I'm a little confused about the direction you're going.  In an earlier post, it seemed like you were defending the validity of Pope Sylvester's supremacy over the Church at the time of the Council of Nicaea.  Now it seems like you could be siding with those who reject papal supremacy outright.  Which is it?

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I'm a little confused about the direction you're going.  In an earlier post, it seemed like you were defending the validity of Pope Sylvester's supremacy over the Church at the time of the Council of Nicaea.  Now it seems like you could be siding with those who reject papal supremacy outright.  Which is it?

You had said, "at the time there was no such thing as a Pope".

I posted the article to show you that there was such a thing at that time.

The Orthodox would also disagree with you as they affirm that there has "always been a Pope".

The Orthodox will also agree that the Pope has always had "Primacy" - the dispute / disagreement they proffer is that the Pope had 'SUPREMACY'.