But What About Those Mormons?
ell, I didn’t quite realize what fun we would have with the last couple of posts. And I certainly didn’t realize that my “short list” would get such an interesting response! But I would like to try to address some of the major points that have been raised in a further attempt to make my case for simplicity.
Please understand that I have every intention of keeping the conversation as civil as it has been. One of my unwritten goals for this blog is still keeping this blog a “safe” place to discuss theological issues without mudslinging, namecalling, etc. And I owe a lot to you, my readers, for helping keep that tone in the comments section. I am blessed to have you here on my little blog. So, with that being said, let me now share what’s on my heart in this area.
The first issue that came up, raised by Earl, is the example of Mormons. Earl feels that my short list would be (at least verbally) “ok” with Mormons, and therefore, my list is insufficient. After all, if it lets the Mormons in, it must be bad, because we all know that Mormons are in a cult, and can’t possibly be saved. (Yes, that’s slightly tongue-in-cheek!) And so, we come to this question, raised by Earl: Do you consider Mormons, who follow their doctrine, to be orthodox Christians?
Now, this question actually represents a subtle switching of the topic by Earl, albeit I’m sure quite unintentionally. Earl began by saying that my list would include Mormons as Christians, but then asked if I consider Mormons to be orthodox Christians. That is actually a whole different subject that would be something of a rabbit trail right now, so I don’t want to get too distracted with it. I’ll make a note to come back to it at some point, though, and that is the topic of “orthodoxy”. Specifically, it would be interesting to discuss what that term means, where it comes from, who holds the gavel in determining what is (and is not) orthodox. But if you don’t mind, Earl, I’m going to scrap the word “orthodox” from your question and answer the more basic question of whether or not I would consider Mormons to be Christians.
Well, actually, you’re probably going to think that I’m copping out on the answer, rather than answering it directly, but it really does have a lot to do with the main point I was trying to make in the recent posts. That point is this: I am not trying to create a statement of faith (or confession) which is based on anything other than Scripture. Additionally, I am not coming at this from an angle of making sure that certain people are excluded.
To look at a statement of faith (even if it’s informal) and say, “But that would allow for [insert name of group you are convinced is headed straight to Hell] to claim they are Christians” is to come at it from the wrong angle. My response to this type of statement is, “Who says they aren’t?” It seems that we are starting with a presupposition that we know who’s in and who’s out. That’s a dangerous place to begin.
Listen, I don’t mean to be patronizing about this, but it’s completely up to God whether or not to let a member of the Mormons into Heaven. For that matter, it’s completely up to Him whether or not to let any of us in! And Scripture reveals to us that the way to the Father is through faith in Jesus Christ. So if someone is putting their faith in Jesus as the way to the Father, then there’s not much we can say about it.
The reality is, we are all wrong in some area of our beliefs. Now, I am no expert on Mormon doctrine, and frankly I don’t need to be for this conversation because this conversation doesn’t need to be about whether or not Mormons could subscribe to my short list and call themselves Christians. The point is how far are we going to go in adding to the list of what people need to believe in order to be welcomed as a Christian? And why is it ok for us to be wrong in some areas, but it’s not ok for someone else to be wrong?
I have heard similar comments made (in various discussions) about Roman Catholics, about Oneness Pentecostals, about charismatics in general, about Methodists, about Anglicans…you get the picture? Every group thinks they have the “inside scoop” on what is necessary, and they can’t handle the thought that others might be “in” as well.
I have to be honest here and say that, in some senses, Earl and Isabel have proven the point I was making that the lines we draw end up being more divisive than anything. And I continue to contend that those lines go beyond Scripture. For example, what did Paul respond when asked what one should do to be saved (Acts 16:30-31)? He said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, the only Son of God, conceived of a virgin by the Holy Spirit….” No. He said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.” And later, in writing to the church at Corinth, he said that the essence of what he preached was that Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures, was buried, and raised again on the third day according to the Scriptures. That’s a far cry from where the creeds and confessions of the last 2,000 years have taken us!
Isabel raised the point about thinking it necessary to include that Jesus was the “only Son of God”, and even expressed some disappointment that I hadn’t even included the phrase “Son of God” at all. Raborn has already stolen some of my thunder in responding to this, but I want to reiterate the point he made. If you read the New Testament, you will find that Jesus is not referred to as the “only Son of God”. We are told that we, too, are given the power (the right) to become “sons of God”. And as Raborn pointed out, there are other passages that refer to Jesus as the “first born”.
(As a side note, I think the NIV really botched John 3:16 when they translated huion ton monogene as “one and only Son”. While it is true that Luke uses the same Greek word in referring to a single offspring, using this translation for John’s usage of the word contradicts other Scriptures, as I am demonstrating here. It is better seen as a uniqueness of how Christ was “begotten” in a way different to how we become sons [i.e., through adoption].)
You see, folks, this is exactly the problem I’m trying to highlight here. In our enthusiasm for “orthodoxy” and making sure that all our t’s are crossed and our i’s are dotted, we have gone beyond the teaching of Scripture and made a doctrine “essential” that is not even accurately stated. Now, do I have all the answers for what it means that we become “sons of God”? No, I don’t claim to. But I do know that it means that I can’t honestly say that Jesus is the only “son of God” without ignoring some Scriptures entirely, and twisting others.
With regard to the virgin birth, if that is such an essential doctrine, why do we not see it being preached in the New Testament? Why did Paul never refer to it? Why is it never contained in summaries of the Gospel as recorded by Paul? Note that I’m not saying I don’t believe in the virgin birth! Please don’t misunderstand my point here. What I’m saying is that if it is so essential that we must include it in our confessions, then why was it not central in the New Testament record of sermons preached?
In further illustrating my point for me, Earl and Isabel mentioned that the problems they see with my “short list” are exactly why we have confessions. To use Earl’s words:
But this gives you a flavor of what can happen with short confessions. This is why various historical creeds were developed, such as the Nicene Creed and the Definition of Chalcedon were developed, to address these kind of issues.
And with that comment, we have come full circle to my point about sola scriptura. What I see in Earl’s comment here is that the creeds were developed in order to make sure that people knew what they were supposed to believe. Scripture, apparently, was not enough to use as a guide. Things had to be boiled down to propositions that (to continue beating this horse) went further than Scripture itself, and then these became (and still are considered to be) the measuring rod.
Let’s look at Chalcedon, for example, which concludes with the following words: as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us. This equates “the Creed of the holy Fathers” with the teaching of the prophets and of Jesus Himself. So here, we have a creed (or definition, if you want to use that term, instead) giving equal weight to another creed.
Or, let’s take a look at my favorite to pick on, the Athanasian Creed (attributed to Athanasius, but doubted by scholars as being from him). The language used in the Athanasian Creed drives many evangelical definitions of the Trinity. And this Creed makes it abundantly clear that one must embrace this definition in order to be saved. Allow me to quote portions here:
- Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith.
- Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally.
- Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being….
- Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits.
- And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other;
- but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons.
- Whoever wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity….
- This is the catholic faith.
- One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully.
- Does anyone else see what I see? Here are statements that are not clearly spelled out in Scripture, yet this statement says that one “cannot be saved” without subscribing to it! This is exactly what I’m talking about! We cannot add to Scripture in this way by creating statements and telling people they must embrace them in order to be saved. What arrogance! What foolishness!
- And so, I once again open myself up for criticism here, but I feel that I cannot state this any more clearly. Beliefs such as the virgin birth, Jesus being the Son of God, etc. might be all well and good. But where do we draw the line? “Orthodoxy” for many centuries has forced many other doctrines on us as being “essential”, and I take my stand here against that. Not against the beliefs themselves, but the implication (or outright assertion) that one must subscribe to every one of them in order to be considered “in”.
- Earl and Isabel, I appreciate your dialogue here, and I hope it continues. But I would strongly encourage both of you to think about the implications of what you are saying. First of all, the implication that we have to somehow make sure that certain people are excluded. And second, the implication that the creeds and confessions that have gone before are consistent with Scripture. Please, let’s start with what Scripture actually says, and work from there! But let’s not go beyond that, or add to it, or force something back onto it that’s not there, and then make that a divisive issue.
- Until next time,
- steve
September 19th, 2006 01:19
Steve, it is with a great deal of interest that I have been following this conversation.
Let me say up front, that I appreciate what I perceive your heart in this discussion, and that is removal of artificial barriers that we sometimes place between ourselves and other believers. It is painfully obvious that the more of these barriers that we erect, the more the efficiency of the church is limited. However, I don’t believe that we should let one extreme drive us to another.
I would say in general that I agree with you concerning creeds replacing the authority of scripture in many circles. I don’t know why this happens unless it is simply that so many believers are content to let others do their learning for them.
I realize that what I am about to say may not be directly in line with your main point, but I did want to comment on the matter of the virgin birth and the possibility that someone with an erroneous view of who Jesus is could be saved.
I believe (as I am sure you do, too) that the virgin birth, while not discussed at great length in the epistles, is a vital part of the Bibles teaching about who Jesus is. God could have chosen any way He wished to bring Christ to earth, but He prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. This was given as a sign, identifying Jesus as the One who was promised. If we say that it is not vital that a person believe in the virgin birth, I fear that we risk obscuring or even diluting the truth of who Christ is. If a person cannot muster enough faith to accept this miracle, I question whether they can muster enough faith to believe that Jesus is capable of the Resurrection or of delivering them from Hell.
As for the Mormons (as well as other groups), you are right that it is up to God who does and who doesn’t enter Heaven. But God has established clear lines as to what a person must believe to be saved. The Mormon church openly teaches that while Jesus is “a god”, even the Son of God, they do not believe that YESHUA and JEHOVAH are the same. Does this not strike against the very heart of who Jesus is?
As I said, I appreciate your desire for strengthening the fellowship of the body of Christ. The Bible does place an importance, though, on drawing some lines in the sand when it comes to doctrine, especially that of the Gospel.
I look forward to the development of this conversation.
God bless.
September 19th, 2006 06:58
Gordon, I really appreciate your comment on this. Unfortunately, we are about to leave for an all-day homeschool field trip, so I will be unable to interact with anybody on this until later tonight.
Let me just leave it right now by saying that I think you raise some good points, Gordon, and I appreciate, as always, the tone that you have used here.
The question continues to remain as to where we do draw the lines in the sand. As I see it, my short list is still a line in the sand, and still is related to the Gospel. I’m very open to correction on this, though (that goes for Earl and Isabel, and others, too!) and look forward to more constructive dialogue about this.
Have a blessed day, everyone! See you tonight.
steve
September 19th, 2006 10:54
Gordon,
I am really enjoying this discussion. I hope I am not pre-empting Steve’s reply, but I would like to reply for myself. While I absolutely believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, and in His deity, I think that we need to be cautious when saying that these are essential doctrines that someone must believe in order to be saved. I know of many people who accepted Jesus as their Savior at a very young age. I doubt that most of these same people had any idea of what sex is, which seems to me to be a precursory understanding to the idea of the virgin birth. If these persons did not understand sex, surely they did not understand what a virgin is. If belief in the virgin birth is essential to one’s salvation, do we then need to disregard the professions of faith made by children too young to understand this idea? I think not.
I doubt that many people who have come to faith in Christ as a result of things like the “Jesus” movie completely understand things like the hypostatic union, the virgin birth or the idea of the Trinity. Yet, I doubt that any of us would say that the faith of these persons is not genuine. While I believe many of these doctrines, and believe that they are taught in Scripture, I have yet to find a biblical precedent for presenting these beliefs as essential. Paul presents the gospel as such:
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,1 Cornithians 15:3-4 NIV
Unfortunately, I too will be out of town for the day, but I do look forward to catching up with you guys tonight:)
September 19th, 2006 12:47
Steve, one of the things I do is that sometimes I am careful in what I say (not all the time). When I asked the question about Mormons, I added the qualifier orthodox. Sure, it is possible for some Mormons to be Christians. Gordon Cloud was getting the point of my remarks. We do no favors to people if we become too accepting of a large number of beliefs that are not Biblical. I don’t wish to pick on Mormons in particular, but they are a real concrete example that illustrate the issues of the value of creeds. The example with Mormons is that their view of salvation, their view of God is so fundamentally different, that they in reality believe in a different God. I’ve had great times with Mormon friends, but unless their place their faith in the full work that the eternal Son of God, who became flesh, did on the cross, they are not saved. I say this not out of superiority, but as a fellow beggar who found clean wholesome food to another beggar who is eating tainted food that is killing him, even though that beggar has gotten use to the taste of the tainted food and is quite attached to it.
With respect to Raborn’s comment, no one needs Thd’s to come to Christ. There is a principle of to those who are given more, more is required. The initial faith of a child is not going to reflect the mature faith of an adult. However, those that grow in their faith, heeding the voice of God in their lives, will recognize God’s voice. A true child of God will not, as they mature and understand, reject the foundational things of who Jesus is. So, as parents, as leaders, as we shepherd our children and the new ones in the faith, we will evaluate and teach according to the level of those we are shepherding. This principle is also reflected historically in the various catechism used in the churches. There are various simple children’s catechism that teach children the very simple basics of the faith. There are other kinds of catechisms for older children. Then there are the classic confessions of historical Christianity, the Nicene, Chalcedon, others, for those who are more mature, as they are able to handle more.
We want our confessions or statements of what we believe to be Biblical. But that does not mean we only use sentences and words straight from the Bible. If we were to do that, we should be going and sending our children to Hebrew and Greek school. It is fine to use words like Trinity, not even found in our English translations of our Bibles, to express Biblical ideas.
Finally, I want to further express that confessions do not necessarilty cause uncritical thinking. I’ve given you my story with a particular confession, that in my antagonism to it, I read the Bible and thought more deeply about Biblical issues than ever before. There are many where the opposite happened — but that does not have to be the case, an in those cases we don’t need to throw out the baby with the bath water. There are many ways to use confessions to prod us to deeply ponder the Biblical issues and learn.
September 19th, 2006 13:45
Rayborn, I can appreciate the point you are making as I was saved myself at the age of four. No, I did not understand the concept of the virgin birth, hypostatic union or any other of the more intricate doctrines of Christ.
Perhaps I have misunderstood the tenor of this conversation, but I got the idea we are talking about belief as opposed to understanding. If I am mistaken in my perception, straighten me out Steve.
I think the burden of responsibility in this matter falls more on the one who is presenting the Gospel than on the one who is hearing it. This would raise the question: Can a “gospel” that denies the deity, virgin birth, etc. bring a person to genuine, saving faith? Could this be why Paul pronounced anathema in Galatians upon those who preach a false gospel ?
BTW, Steve, I like the way your anti-spam words are named after composers. I do hope you have Pachelbel on the list, he is my favorite.
September 19th, 2006 16:22
I had two thoughts:
First, an organized group needs a creed. It does serve the point of establishing what is held as a shared belief and clarifying issues for new members. This is not an inherently bad idea. We all subscribe to the idea that these beliefs be biblically based.
However, this underscores why some of us have reckoned to walk our faith outside the organized body. We feel encumbered and short changed by discussions that once “proved” according to the creed are treated as if all is correctly answered though it can feel as if the people being quieted have not been served.
Second, the short list will not work for the organized body. Before long someone is teaching Sunday school who is only willing to say something to the effect of, “I believe in a higher power in the cosmos.” Then folks end up at odds over how such a belief system could be “officially” teaching antyhing within the group. The resulting strife is good for no one.
But in the small group within a home, it works. It works because the small list is enough for folks to be together and develop relationships. From the perpsective of developing relationships, the fellowship of the Spirit either becomes evident or it does not. If it doesn’t because one holds beliefs counter to true biblical faith in the risen Lord Jesus, this is a good thing. The false belief can become exposed and explored and through the Holy Spirit be illuminated to the heart of the one in such a way as to enable a change. When believers speak from a position of reality concerning walking with the living God, those who are not walking so, soon recognize such. They either reject what is being shared, Life in the Spirit, or desire to join into sharing.
September 19th, 2006 16:51
Ded, I see a lot of wisdom in what you say.
Let me throw out this thought for your feedback. Classic confessions, such as the Nicene Creed, Definition of Chalcedon, The Athanasian Creed, provide a useful checklist even in a close, intimate setting of a house church. It is a way for the leaders and teachers in a house church to see how their understanding it, and make sure important doctrine is taught to the other members of the house church. The creeds that I specifically mentioned are creeds that have been recognized across all churches and not tied to particular groups or denominations.
September 19th, 2006 16:55
…another point, the Holy Spirit also works in studying, it is not limited to mystic feeling experiences. If, for instance, after much study, I see that a belief is logically inconsistent with what the Bible teaches, that is also the work of the Holy Spirit just as much as any other way that the Holy Spirit moves in revealing the thoughts of God to us.
September 19th, 2006 18:39
Earl,
These creeds are useful, of course, and for a variety of things. In the small group, I can imagine using them as a springboard of discussion. However as a checklist of what it means to live in the Spirit of God, they are limited, perhaps at times unwise. A believer should not trust a creedal confession. One must come to a place of utter dependence on the in-dwelling presence of God. I never recite these creeds and no one ever asks me to do so except in organized churches. Therein they remind me of the progression of church life through the centuries. Such historical perpsective is useful, but I need not recite that which I live through the present Lord Jesus.
Study is very valuable, and I completely agree with your position that the Holy Spirit reveals Truth through study. Yet, I do not trust my pride and intellect together. I have too often inflated my opinion of self upward based on what I felt God had enabled me to understand intellectually. Ultimately, I have no trust that humans are capable of pure objective thought. I am not suggesting we abandon study. I simply accept all study conclusions are limited by human ability to see and understand the things of God as contrasted with study enlightened by the Spirit which brings life. I see this as a position of recognizing I must not think highly of myself; I am merely a created being.
I wonder at your statement “…the Holy Spirit …is not limited to mystical, feeling experiences.” By that, I assume you are saying the Holy Spirit is in some mystical, feeling experiences as well as in study. I infer such from the context. Forgive me for turning to semantics, but over the years I have become convinced that words and their ascribed meanings separate believers unnecessarily. So I ask, is having the Holy Spirit reveal truth an interaction between natural human and supernatural God? If “yes”, then since mystical simply means experiences with the supernatural, revelation by study would be mystical, wouldn’t it?
I would think you base your position on the importance of creeds (please correct me if I am wrong) on concern that individuals not believe things which are subjective in nature and influenced by human feelings. The root of Joseph Smith’s deception is that he developed a belief system on a “mystical” revelation, right? I would agree.
Yet, I don’t understand how an intellectual study of Scripture which reveals the Truth of God could not be a mystical experience. Plenty of folks intellectually use the Scripture but fail to understand it, and therein fail the Truth with Scripture. That is our concern with Mormons, JW’s, et al, no? Yet, faith that pleases God must be considered “mystical.” It is afterall, the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. That which is not seen, is not of the material world. Neither is our hope of salvation for eternity in heaven something we can hold in our hands. It is supernatural and understood only because the grace of God has allowed the revelation. Bottom line if one holds to a creed based on human strength it is of no use. Only faith in the words, which in turn are only to be trusted as the words hold the concepts illuminated by the Spirit in Scripture, is of any value. The creed alone is just words until the believer connects with the “mystical” or supernatural meaning of the words guarded by the creed. What do the creeds seek to guard except the gospel, the good news that man may enter into communion with the one, true God? The creeds are “mystical” except where man-centered thinking has added to the Scripture in the creed.
That strikes me as a concern Steve raised and with which I concur. Thanks for your patiience if you have read all of this!
September 19th, 2006 19:52
Steve,
Though I do appreciate your refusal to be exclusionary where Mormons are concerned and a refusal to identify who is “in” and who isn’t “in,” the Bible also tells us there are ways that we can establish if a faith is sufficient to grant a person entry to heaven. I agree with you that it is up to God who is “in” or “not in.” 2 Timothy 4:1 tells us that it is Jesus Christ who will judge the living and the dead.
We are also told in 1 John 4:1 not to believe every spirit but test the spirits whether they are of God. I hesistate to use the word “othodox,” though it does seem to be the best qualifier, because through reading the past few posts it seems this word has taken on a negative connotation. I may be wrong if that is how you feel about the term. However, Mormons do not hold to orthodox Chrsitian doctrine.
They do not believe Jesus is who He says He is. He is not divine, He was not born of a virgin, He was actually an angel who became the son, and so the list goes. Though I do not believe someone must understand “orthodox” doctrine to be truly saved, I do believe that one that is truly regenerated by the Spirit of God, that the same Spirit that indwelss the believer will lead them also to a proper understanding of God’s Son, as per the Scriptures.
When I came to Christ I had no clue Jesus was born of a virgin. Nor did I really understand all the tenets of the faith, and I am still learning. I once had a pastor tell me that a failure to believe Genesis 1-11 as literal history is an indicator that a person is not saved. He and I argued about that for a long time that afternoon. I believe that you can be saved and not hold to all the “orthodox” tenets of the faith; but I believe the Bible does not allow for a truly saved person to hold doctrine contrary to the Scriptures. There may be a time of consideration and study so as to formulate one’s own doctrine, a time of grappling with those essentials and comparing them to other faith’s distinctives. Paul spent several years in Arabia getting himself together (Galatians 1:17-18). So, we can split hairs about if a person at a very young age came to Jesus in repentance and in faith and then later became a Mormon; is that person still saved? I don’t know if such a defection is possible.
Wouldn’t the same Holy Spirit guard from such a defection taking place, aka the perseverance of the saints? Galatians 2:4 speaks of false brethren secretly brought in; 2 Corinthians 11:26 tells of Paul’s danger from false brethren; Jesus said, “not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven. Peter’s first epistle in 1:5 promises that heaven is kept by the power of God through faith for salvation. There is a link there between (true) faith and a believer’s inheritance of heaven.
John 3:36 says that “He who believes in the Son has eternal life.” The question must be asked, which Jesus do you believe in? Our Mormon friends have contrived their own Jesus and believe in him rather than the Jesus of the Bible. I have provided only a brief sampling of Scriptures, for I know your high and reverent view of the Word, as I share the same view. There seems to be some universalistic leanings to this post, possibly unintentional. Please correct me if I misunderstand your words.
I so appreciate your gracious spirit and quiet tone; so much unlike other blogs. Thank you for considering my comments. God bless us as we seek the truth together.
September 19th, 2006 20:19
Fantastic comments, everyone!! Wow. What a treat to come back to after our long day! I need to sift through my other emails and stuff and then I’ll make some general comments in response.
Thank you for not burning me at the stake while I was gone!
steve
September 19th, 2006 21:09
Ded,
Thank you for your comments. I did not fully explain what I meant by mystical and probably misused the word. Certainily the interaction of the Holy Spirit is a supernatural and a mystery. By mystic, I mean a form of mysticism that bypasses human rationality altogether. Of course we’re not to put our confidence in our own abilities, but confidence in abilities can be subtley present in many ways, including that the mystical experience we interpret as the Holy Spirit is just that. This is where we are to constantly go to the Scriptures through prayer, and not neglect study (e.g., as in the example of the Berians and Paul’s exhortation to Timothy to study).
But yes, we have the breaking into the natural realm the supernatural Holy Spirit. But we are to test the spirits, and one way (and certainly not the only way) is careful, prayer, diligent study.
September 19th, 2006 22:00
Steve, not burn you at the stake? Why that’s a fine Calvinist tradition
Where’s the match? …just kidding (and poking rough humor at my tradition’s unfortunate history).
September 19th, 2006 22:07
Earl, let me start with you (And by the way, thank you for the humor that you interjected while I was still typing this!):
A true child of God will not, as they mature and understand, reject the foundational things of who Jesus is.
This is one of those statements that seems to indicate a fair amount of presuppositions already being placed on Scripture. This statement leads us to a scenario that puts us quite a bit in the position of judge. Consider:
Now we are left with a couple of options:
As I see it, those are about the only options. Did I miss anything there? I take it from your statement that you would go with option 1. But I honestly don’t see how you can make this statement and back it up with Scripture.
Now, with regard to the idea that we can only use phrases found in Scripture, let me state very clearly that I have never taken this position. But, I continue to contend that even the most widely-accepted creeds, sometimes go farther than Scripture. By that, I do not mean that they use words not found in Scripture, but that they reduce to propositions things that are not explicitly taught in Scripture. And then, as in the case with the Athanasian creed, they exalt that reduction to the level of absolute essential doctrine.
One final comment, and then I’ll move on. You wrote: The creeds that I specifically mentioned are creeds that have been recognized across all churches and not tied to particular groups or denominations.
This is not an accurate statement, unless you are prepared to judge large portions of Christianity (such as United Pentecostals) as not being true “churches”. I sincerely hope that is not the case. Many would be prepared to say this, and if that’s the case, we may not have much to talk about here, because that is the complete antithesis of the points I have been trying to make here. So, I’ll give you the opportunity to clarify, alter, or retract that comment.
I continue to thank you for your gracious dialogue here. I hope we can find some common ground in this.
steve
September 19th, 2006 22:18
Incidentally, while I was catching up on stuff before responding here, I came across this humorous, but poignant post on Internet Monk. I highly recommend you all read it, even if you don’t agree with it. Even though it deals more with the specific issue of taking the Lord’s Supper with those of doctrinal difference, it really fits in very nicely with the topic of discussion here and highlights some of the absurdity I am trying to point out in the way we handle doctrinal differences.
steve
March 3rd, 2007 17:07
[…] the essentials of Christianity. One of those posts carried a tongue-in-cheek title of “But What About Those Mormons?” The basic gist of that post and other posts was that we often seek to define Christianity by […]