Creeds fall short when it comes to the Mystery of the GodHead

[hobie]

We see what seems to be very straightforward, and yet its one of the things that has been very complex to describe...

Colossians 1:18-20 King James Version

18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Creeds are inadequate attempt by man to describe the glory of the GodHead. When God Himself is the subject, there is no finality of understanding, and there is no creed that can fully explain the infinite nature of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. If you search through them you will find that all ideas of man fall short when it comes to the deep things of God, We must stick to the scriptures and not presume anything they do not reveal, and not deny anything they do.

Here is a good read of the issue by Benjamin Franklin...

'The Failure of Creeds

"But there are so many creeds, all claiming to be right, that I should not know which to take. They were all made by learned men, and if they can not agree on the kind of a creed, how am I to decide which is right?" says one. It is a matter of great moment and of much relief that, aside from all these conflicting, clashing, and erring creeds, there is one book that all parties concede is right. They all agree that the Bible is right — that it came from God. They all further agree that it contains the law of God — that the law of the Lord is perfect. The only wonder is, that man ever attempted to make any other creed or law for the Church. Such an undertaking could not have commenced without two wicked assumptions:

1. That the law of God, as set forth in the Bible, is not sufficient — is a failure.

2. That the insufficiency or failure can be remedied by weak, erring, and uninspired men.

No man of intelligence will affirm, in plain terms, that the Bible is not sufficient for the government of the saints; or that man — uninspired man — can make a creed that will serve a better purpose than the Bible. Still such affirmations are implied in every attempt made by uninspired men to make a creed. If you admit, as all are bound to do, that the law of God is in the Bible; that nothing may be added to it, nothing taken from it, and that no part of it may be changed, there is not an excuse in the world for making another law. The law of God in the Bible is the law, the divine law, the supreme law, in the kingdom of God; and it is a treasonable movement to attempt to get up another constitution, law, name, body, or officers, apart from the constitution, law, name, body, and officers as found in the Bible.

But the matter now in hand is to find a safe course to pursue. Can this be done? All admit the Bible is right. All admit that the law of God in the Bible is right. All admit that those who follow the Bible honestly and faithfully, in faith and practice, will be saved. All admit that wherever any creed differs from the Bible is wrong. Then it is infallibly safe to take the Bible and follow it. When men undertake to prove that a human creed is a good one, they argue that it is like the Bible. If a creed like the Bible is a good one, why will not the Bible itself do? If the Bible will not serve the purpose — is insufficient and a failure — a creed like it would be equally insufficient. When men make a creed to do what the Bible would not do, they should certainly make it different from the Bible, or it would serve no better purpose than the Bible itself.'...www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/bfranklin/tgp1/TGP15.HTM">https://webfiles.acu.edu/departments/Library/HR/restmov_nov11/www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/bfranklin/tgp1/TGP15.HTM

And a even better one...

'In their article... Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes claim that the local churches “refuse to accept the orthodox creedal statements on the Trinity.”1 In endnote 3 they wrote, “A doctrine is said to be aberrant if it undermines or is in significant tension with the orthodox beliefs of the historic Christian faith as based in the Bible and expressed in the early Christian creeds.” By making the creeds the authoritative expression of biblical truth, Geisler and Rhodes actually make the creeds a higher rule of faith than the Bible....

The Bible testifies of itself: “All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). For man to consider the creeds as authoritative is for him to annul the authority of the Bible! It causes man to take the creeds as the standard instead of taking the Bible as the standard!..." https://contendingforthefaith.org/en/the-error-of-making-creeds-not-the-bible-the-rule-of-faith/

[Gustave]

One of the things that the Nicene Creed Systematizes from Sacred Scripture is that Christ's coming and victorious outcome was "ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES". I.E. there was only ONE outcome possible - God wins, period. The Bible makes it clear that the Gospel is simply Jesus came and died for us so that we might have eternal life AND according to the Bible the most important part of that Gospel was that Jesus' death and resurrection were "ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES". 

Hobie, do you believe contrary to 1st Corinthians 15, 1-6? That whatever it is that you believe was born from Mary possessed the potential of choosing to sin, loose it's salvation and eternally cease to exist? 

The Creed is like marker buoy's informing Christians about what they can't believe in - believing that God the Son had the possibility of sinning and loosing His Salvation and eternally ceasing to exist is one such dangerous reef you don't want to shipwreck on. 

 

[hobie]

The main issue with creeds is you tend to lock down on going forward as truth is revealed. So it tends to make people afraid to learn further or unveil more..

[Gustave]

7 hours ago, hobie said:

The main issue with creeds is you tend to lock down on going forward as truth is revealed. So it tends to make people afraid to learn further or unveil more..

The Nicene Creed most certainly locked down what St. Paul called the most important part of the Gospel, i.e. that Jesus is indeed God Almighty and that there was zero possibility of Christ failing to fulfill everything written about Him in the Law, the Psalms & the Prophets (The Old Testament). Everything in Christian Orthodoxy moves downstream from that unalterable truth. 

Now, it's true that many movements that rejected Councils taught their sheep that Christ could have sinned, lost His salvation and eternally ceased to exist. Many movements also taught their sheep that Jesus wasn't God Almighty. The Council in Acts 15 didn't produce Jello like teachings that were subject to mutation down the road. 

[Gustave]

Just now, Gustave said:

The Nicene Creed most certainly locked down what St. Paul called the most important part of the Gospel, i.e. that Jesus is indeed God Almighty and that there was zero possibility of Christ failing to fulfill everything written about Him in the Law, the Psalms & the Prophets (The Old Testament). Everything in Christian Orthodoxy moves downstream from that unalterable truth. 

Now, it's true that many movements that rejected Councils taught their sheep that Christ could have sinned, lost His salvation and eternally ceased to exist. Many movements also taught their sheep that Jesus wasn't God Almighty. The Council in Acts 15 didn't produce Jello like teachings that were subject to mutation down the road & the same goes for Nicaea.