[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.

[ArrogantBustard]

Congratulations ... that’s a step in the right direction. Or at least a refusal to take a bunch of steps in the wrong direction.

[Vigilanteman]

Both of yinz make interesting points and I congratulate you for your civility, a civility which is too often absent when some of the extreme fundamentalists get into the fray.

Too many of these are the 5% crowd. i.e. you are an apostate and an enemy if you disagree with them on just 5% of their doctrinal dogmas.

And make no mistake that they are dogmas, often in the extreme. A friend of mine observed that they are really no different than "cafeteria Catholics," only in their choices of what they select in the cafeteria.

Or, put another way:

1. Catholics take the "body of Christ" thing very literally.
   
2. Mormons take the "children of God" thing very literally.
   
3. Fundies take their private interpretation of the Bible very literally.