[ArrogantBustard]

IMO, your terminology is also flawed,

Naturally. I'm a little curious, though ... In your particular church, how would you and a hypothetical fellow member of that church who believes as I do resolve your hypothetcial dispute?

Likewise flawed is your claim that non-Nicene subscribers believe your second statement "Jesus is a creature (not consubstantial with the Father)".

Cool your jets, brother. I did not and do not make that claim.

"Jesus (is|is not) of the same divine substance as the Father" is the dispute addressed by the Council of Nicea. That's an historical fact. Also an historical fact is that the Council resolved the dispute in favor of the proposition: "Jesus is of the same divine substance as the Father".

Now, as to modern groups which don't like the Nicene Creed (or creeds in general), I have said nothing. I don't know how they resolve disputes, nor do I know how they codify their beliefs. That's their problem, not mine. If they wish to explain it, that's wonderful.

[Alex Murphy]

....as to modern groups which don't like the Nicene Creed (or creeds in general), I have said nothing. I don't know how they resolve disputes, nor do I know how they codify their beliefs. That's their problem, not mine. If they wish to explain it, that's wonderful.

As I've opined elsewhere, the various creeds and confessions of the historic church have been a useful means of codifying and focusing key Biblical doctrines, and by extension are very useful in matters of church membership (covenants) or forming definitions of heresy for Protestants. Many "Protestant" churches, especially evangelical and non-denominational ones, reject all historic creeds as binding on themselves re matters of discipline or doctrine, and thus there is no simple way of determining whether they are "in the fold" (i.e. orthodox) or not.

By refusing to profess/acknowledge a creed, or at least publish an "articles of faith" / "doctrinal statement", these anti-creedal churches and believers functionally accomplish five things:

• a tacit a priori rejection of every prior creed and/or codification of doctrine formulated by any church body, at any and at every point in church history,
• a practical behavior, if not an outright creed-like belief and teaching, that Wisdom ended in the first century (when special revelation did), effectively dismissing any and all possible wisdom acquired by any bible-believing Christian in any post-NT church era, contrary to Proverbs 2:6-9,
• an allowance of relatively minor points of doctrine (eschatology, worship forms and practices, ecclesiastical government forms, etc) to be granted equal status with major points of doctrine (the Trinity, nature of salvation, etc),
• an allowance for doctrinal stances to shift from moment to moment, congregation to congregation, pastor to pastor, or even from week to week, without declaration or documentation,
• a willful sequestering of oneself from examination and correction by any congregation, visitors, friends, fellow believers and unbelievers, preventing all from discovering one's actual doctrinal beliefs without forcing a long, arduous and mandatory investigation.

And with that, I yield the floor.