An unscientific poll RE; Credence of Creeds(AKA a vanity)

self | 3/31/2004 | conservonator

[conservonator]

Another FReeper and I are engaged in a discussion on another thread and the subjects of creeds came up. From personal experience I know that there are people who consider them selves Christians and refuse to recite any creeds including the Apostles and Nicene creeds for various reasons and some even reject portions of said creeds. Ever mindful of the questionable nature of anecdotal evidence used to support or advance a position, I would like to take a very unscientific poll (ok, so it’s not much better than my personal anecdotal evidence) to find out if all Christians accept all the beliefs contained in both of the creeds mentioned earlier

Here are the creeds

Apostles Creed

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, 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 sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.

And now the Nicene Creed

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:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
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.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He 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.

So, do you accept all, some or none of the tenets espoused by these creeds?

[Titanites]

Yes

What about these differences:

a) Infant, non-regenerative baptism (Presbyterians)
b) Infant regenerative baptism (e.g., Lutheranism and Anglicanism)
c) Adult non-regenerative baptism (Baptists, most pentecostals and non-denoms)
d) Adult regenerative baptism (e.g., Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ)
e) No baptism (Quakers and Salvation Army)

[Titanites]

he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

Anglican baptismal belief is this:

Holy Baptism

Q. What is Holy Baptism?
A. Holy Baptism is the sacrament by which God adopts us as his children and makes us members of Christ's Body, the Church, and inheritors of the kingdom of God.

Q. What is the outward and visible sign in Baptism?
A. The outward and visible sign in Baptism is water, in which the person is baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Q. What is the inward and spiritual grace in Baptism?
A. The inward and spiritual grace in Baptism is union with Christ in his death and resurrection, birth into God's family the Church, forgiveness of sins, and new life in the Holy Spirit.

It is apparent that at least some Protestants, like the Anglicans, believe that the baptism mentioned in the Nicene Creed refers to water baptism. Do all Protestants concur with the above posted Anglican belief about baptism?

[Titanites]

Rather ironic and sad that Protestants who believe in the creeds of the early church are consider heretics and the Catholics who can't agree on them are consider bethern.

Oh, well...as long as they kiss the Pope's ring I guess

Now that we've shown the disagreement about the creeds was between the Catholic and Orthodox churches, do you retract this slander?

[conservonator]

And no Protestant has disavowed the creeds.

So you know for a fact that nate4one is not a Protestant?

Can you give me a list of Protestants? would Becky or Mac be Protestants in your eyes?

[Rubber_Duckie_27]

I am Lutheran, and fully accept both the Apostles and Nicene creeds. We use one of them in every worship service...I am not too familiar with other Protestant services but it wouldn't surprise me if most Protestants adhere to these creeds as well. In my mind they are the universal Christian tenets.

I do know of some non-denominational Christians who do not agree with the creeds because of the term "holy catholic chuch" - some because they think "catholic" automatically means "Roman Catholic" and others because they reject the idea of a universal Christian church for some reason.

[conservonator]

Thanks for the response. I know that every Lutheran service I have attended (LCMS and ELCA) one of the creeds was used. In fact, the first time I ever attended a Lutheran service, I was surprised at the similarities to the modern Catholic Mass.

[HarleyD]

"Now that we've shown the disagreement about the creeds was between the Catholic and Orthodox churches, do you retract this slander?"

Excuse me??? You've posted one article from the Catholic Church on the subject. I have posted two articles from the Eastern Church. And there is certainly a number of conflicting information on various sites about this. I'm still trying to sort it all out.

As far as slander goes, I've slandered no one. Many of you Catholics (not all) argue with us Protestants no matter what the position. I have had Catholics argue with me in support of homosexual/pedophile priests, Catholic charities who give away birth control products, priest who advocate pro-choice positions, Hinduism in services, on and on and on. In fact, you are far more interested in arguing with Protestants and ignoring them as heretics than you are in agreeing with them on the evils that is invading the church including the Catholic Church. And its the Vatican's position to have "fellowship" with Muslims, Hindus, and everyone other group except Protestants-that speaks volumes.

If you find you have more in common with people such as Bishop Hubbard, Ted Kennedy or nuns that talk to dead people than a devout Protestant, then it is a sorry state of affair the Catholic Church finds itself in. One can only conclude exactly what I've stated. I stand by my statement.

God will ultimately judge us for our works and it may not turn out the way you think. While us Protestants desire fellowship of all believers you Catholics resist. Perhaps this is God's way of keeping us Protestants pure.

[Quester]

Anglican baptismal belief is this:

Holy Baptism

Q. What is Holy Baptism?

A. Holy Baptism is the sacrament by which God adopts us as his children and makes us members of Christ's Body, the Church, and inheritors of the kingdom of God.

Q. What is the outward and visible sign in Baptism?

A. The outward and visible sign in Baptism is water, in which the person is baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Q. What is the inward and spiritual grace in Baptism?

A. The inward and spiritual grace in Baptism is union with Christ in his death and resurrection, birth into God's family the Church, forgiveness of sins, and new life in the Holy Spirit.

It is apparent that at least some Protestants, like the Anglicans, believe that the baptism mentioned in the Nicene Creed refers to water baptism. Do all Protestants concur with the above posted Anglican belief about baptism?

Looks to be a fairly Protestant statement.

[Titanites]

I have posted two articles from the Eastern Church.

When you refer to the "Eastern Church" do you mean Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Catholic? Do you know there is a difference? The Eastern Catholic accept the filioque:

Since we are in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Catholics believe that the filioque is a legitimate understanding of the Trinity, particular to the Latin tradition.

A "Uniate" or "Eastern Catholic" is someone who is a member of one of the 18 Eastern Rites that are in union with Rome. These formed when certain members of Orthodox, Oriental and Assyrian Churches came under the jurisdiction of the Pope. They accept Roman Catholic doctrine (i.e. the Filioque, Immaculate Conception etc.) but maintain much of their Mother Churches' Rite and traditions.

I'm still trying to sort it all out.

It was sorted out long ago. Once you sort yourself out, I look forward to seeing the retraction.

[Titanites]

Looks to be a fairly Protestant statement.

This looks to be a bit of a waffle. Do all Protestant denominations believe in regenerative water baptism? What denomination are you?

[NYer]

*I have posted two articles from the Eastern Church. *

Harley, this may help you to understand the distinction between Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.

CHURCHES

A Church is an assembly of the faithful, hierarchically ordered, both in the entire world -  the Catholic Church, or in a certain  territory - a particular Church. To be a sacrament (a sign) of the Mystical Body of Christ in the world, a Church must have both a head and members (Col. 1:18).  The sacramental sign of Christ the Head is the sacred hierarchy - the bishops, priests and deacons (Eph. 2:19-22). More specifically, it is the local bishop, with his priests and deacons gathered around and assisting him in his office of teaching, sanctifying and governing (Mt. 28:19-20; Titus 1:4-9). The sacramental sign of the Mystical Body is the Christian faithful. Thus the Church of Christ is fully present sacramentally (by way of a sign) wherever there is a sign of Christ the Head, a bishop and those who assist him, and a sign of Christ's Body, Christian faithful. Each diocese is therefore a particular Church.

The Church of Christ is also present sacramentally in ritual Churches that represent an ecclesiastical tradition of celebrating the sacraments. They are generally organized under a Patriarch, who together with the bishops and other clergy of that ritual Church represent Christ the Head to the people of that tradition. In some cases a Rite is completely coincident with a Church. For example, the Maronite Church with its Patriarch has a Rite not found in any other Church. In other cases, such as the Byzantine Rite, several Churches use the same or a very similar liturgical Rite. For example, the Ukrainian Catholic Church uses the Byzantine Rite, but this Rite is also found in other Catholic Churches, as well as the Eastern Orthodox Churches not in union with Rome.

Finally, the Church of Christ is sacramentally present in the Universal or Catholic Church spread over the entire world. It is identified by the sign of Christ our Rock, the Bishop of Rome, Successor of St. Peter (Mt. 16:18). To be Catholic particular Churches and ritual Churches must be in communion with this Head, just as the other apostles, and the Churches they founded, were in communion with Peter (Gal. 1:18). Through this communion with Peter and his successors the Church becomes a universal sacrament of salvation in all times and places, even to the end of the age (Mt. 28:20).

CATHOLIC RITES AND CHURCHES

[SoothingDave]

Looks to be a fairly Protestant statement.

But it refers to water baptism, not the "baptism" that you earlier mentioned.

Is it OK to say that we agree on the creeds if we don't agree what they mean?

Let's not even get into what we both think "the communion of saints" means. ;-)

SD

[SoothingDave]

And its the Vatican's position to have "fellowship" with Muslims, Hindus, and everyone other group except Protestants-that speaks volumes.

Ignorance is cureable.

SD

[Quester]

This looks to be a bit of a waffle. Do all Protestant denominations believe in regenerative water baptism? What denomination are you?

For the record, the Anglican statement said that water baptism was an outward sign of an inward process.

That is fairly standard Protestant thought.

The creed does not specify water baptism as regenerative. There are other baptisms.

BTW ... I'm fairly Baptist.

[Titanites]

The Roman Catholic Church has not proved unwilling to negotiate on surface appearance of the topic. The Eastern-rite churches of the Catholic Church -- who include the Maronites, the Melkites, the Ruthenians -- returned to union with the Papacy at various dates but were not required to say the "and the Son" formula in their liturgies. However, they are still required to teach the underlying doctrine.

[SoothingDave]

For the record, the Anglican statement said that water baptism was an outward sign of an inward process.

No it said it was a sacrament with outward and visible dsigns and inward graces, including "birth into God's family the Church, forgiveness of sins, and new life in the Holy Spirit. "

These are not coincidental. This is what happens unseen during the water baptism that we do see. It's not talking about a symbol, but a sacrament.

SD

[NYer]

Okay ... here's an explanation from Karl Keating.

Filioque

The Western Church commonly uses a version of the Nicene creed which has the Latin word filioque ("and the Son") added after the declaration that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Scripture reveals that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The external relationships of the persons of the Trinity mirror their internal relationships. Just as the Father externally sent the Son into the world in time, the Son internally proceeds from the Father in the Trinity. Just as the Spirit is externally sent into the world by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, Acts 2:33), he internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity. This is why the Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) and not just the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20).

The quotations below show that the early Church Fathers, both Latin and Greek, recognized the same thing, saying that the Spirit proceeds "from the Father and the Son" or "from the Father through the Son."

These expressions mean the same thing because everything the Son has is from the Father. The proceeding of the Spirit from the Son is something the Son himself received from the Father. The procession of the Spirit is therefore ultimately rooted in the Father but goes through the Son. However, some Eastern Orthodox insist that to equate "through the Son" with "from the Son" is a departure from the true faith.

The expression "from the Father through the Son" is accepted by many Eastern Orthodox. This, in fact, led to a reunion of the Eastern Orthodox with the Catholic Church in 1439 at the Council of Florence: "The Greek prelates believed that every saint, precisely as a saint, was inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore could not err in faith. If they expressed themselves differently, their meanings must substantially agree. . . . Once the Greeks accepted that the Latin Fathers had really written Filioque (they could not understand Latin), the issue was settled (May 29). The Greek Fathers necessarily meant the same; the faiths of the two churches were identical; union was not only possible but obligatory (June 3); and on June 8 the Latin credula [statements of belief] on the procession [of the Spirit] was accepted by the Greek synod" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 5:972–3).

Unfortunately, the union did not last. In the 1450s (just decades before the Protestant Reformation), the Eastern Orthodox left the Church again under pressure from the Muslims, who had just conquered them and who insisted they renounce their union with the Western Church (lest Western Christians come to their aid militarily).

However, union is still possible on the filioque issue through the recognition that the formulas "and the Son" and "through the Son" mean the same thing. Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that "This legitimate complementarity [of expressions], provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed" (CCC 248).

Today many Eastern Orthodox bishops are putting aside old prejudices and again acknowledging that there need be no separation between the two communions on this issue. Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly Timothy Ware), who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: "The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences" (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).

 

Tertullian

"I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son" (Against Praxeas 4:1 [A.D. 216]).

 

Origen

"We believe, however, that there are three persons: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ" (Commentaries on John 2:6 [A.D. 229]).

 

Maximus the Confessor

"By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten (Questions to Thalassium 63 [A.D. 254]).

[Titanites]

For the record, the Anglican statement said that water baptism was an outward sign of an inward process.

You failed to answer my question. Do all Protestant denominations believe in regenerative water baptism? That is what the Anglicans believe no matter how you want to quibble over their statement.

[Quester]

For the record, the Anglican statement said that water baptism was an outward sign of an inward process.

No it said it was a sacrament with outward and visible signs and inward graces, including "birth into God's family the Church, forgiveness of sins, and new life in the Holy Spirit. "

These are not coincidental. This is what happens unseen during the water baptism that we do see. It's not talking about a symbol, but a sacrament.

I do not see that our interpretations of the statement differ, ... if, at all, ... only in that you have more fully detailed the inward process of baptism.

One might say that we are baptized with water externally, ... while we are baptized with the Holy Spirit internally.

[Quester]

See post #59.