C
chworkman05
Guest
Are protestant churches hetrodox for not using and acknowleding the creedal statments? Why do they not use the creeds.
- Status
P
peary
Guest
The way it was explained to me, a creed is a profession of faith, written at a point in time. As such, and since one’s faith ‘evolves’ over time, a denomination may go in a totally different direction and mandate a new creed…of course, all the while, being guided by the Spirit.
J
jblake
Guest
chworkman05;:
The Restoration Movement Congregations are the one’s that reject creeds. Those congregations do not use them, because they are man made.
xan
jonathon
I’m not sure which “creedal statements” you are referring to. Nonetheless Protestant churches do use and adhere to creedal statements.
The Restoration Movement Congregations are the one’s that reject creeds. Those congregations do not use them, because they are man made.
xan
jonathon
C
chworkman05
Guest
Yes, but lets take the Baptist church for example. They will never recite the Creeds. The three accepted major Apostels, nicean, and athanasians. Being of a former Baptist background I attempted to discuss the third article of the creed and it sends them over the edge. Since they do not in my opinion they seem to reject them does this make them hetrodox in basic faith teachings?
C
chworkman05
Guest
The creedal statments that are refered to are the Apostels, Nicean, and Athanasians Creeds.
What is the Restoration Movement. The experiences that I had in protestant churches (Baptist, Evengelical Free, and Non-Denominional) never mentioned, taught, or acknowleged any part of the creedal statments.
Z
Zenas
Guest
I have heard it said by many Baptists, “Our only creed is the word of God.” I am confident the Restoration Movement churches would say the same thing.
C
chworkman05
Guest
What is the Restoration Movement?
So instead of the use of Creeds they substitute for mission statments?
The creeds are a verry basic fundimental statment of faith. What could posibly be there issue with them.
Z
Zenas
Guest
This is a movement spearheaded primarily by two individuals named Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell in the early 19th Century. The movement first took off in Kentucky, Tennessee and Alabama, and gave rise to what we now recognize as the Church of Christ, the Christian Church and Disciples of Christ. Most of their early converts had been Baptists. Today the Church of Christ most closely resembles the Restoration Movement of Stone and Campbell.
J
jblake
Guest
chworkman05;:
The Athanasian Creed is a slightly different issue. it either gets listed by itself, or relegated to “earlier creeds”.
Non-Denominational Churches have one of two origins:
In both instances, teachings that relate to the creeds tend to be minimal. (Indeed, it quite possible for somebody to attend a non-denominational church of the second type, and never learn about the creeds, despite them being included as part of that congregation’s “set of beliefs”.)
EFCA rewrote the Apostle’s Creed and Nicene Creed.
Baptist churches wander on the edge of Creeds. They use them only for teaching purposes, and then stick with the one that their affiliating organization uses. The exception here is The Liturgical Baptist Church, which uses both the Apostles Creed and The Nicene Creed during their service.
xan
jonathon
These are the congregations that reject Protestant Christianity.
As a general rule of thumb, Protestant churches either incorporate The Apostle’s Creed, and Nicene Creed into their own, and list them separately.
The Athanasian Creed is a slightly different issue. it either gets listed by itself, or relegated to “earlier creeds”.
Non-Denominational Churches have one of two origins:
- Restoration Movement;
- Ecumenical Protestant;
In both instances, teachings that relate to the creeds tend to be minimal. (Indeed, it quite possible for somebody to attend a non-denominational church of the second type, and never learn about the creeds, despite them being included as part of that congregation’s “set of beliefs”.)
EFCA rewrote the Apostle’s Creed and Nicene Creed.
Baptist churches wander on the edge of Creeds. They use them only for teaching purposes, and then stick with the one that their affiliating organization uses. The exception here is The Liturgical Baptist Church, which uses both the Apostles Creed and The Nicene Creed during their service.
xan
jonathon
Z
Zenas
Guest
Some congregations may have a very general short mission statement such as this one used by a Southern Baptist Church in the deep South:
Such statements are not intended to be doctrinal statements or statements of faith.
Churches who reject creeds have two problems with them. First, they are written by men, not by God.
Second, they often contain doctrinal statements that are at odds with their beliefs. For example, no evangelicals that I know of believe in the communion of saints. None of them that I know of believe in either one baptism or baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Few of them believe in the holy catholic church, and those who do view it as the invisible church of all believers in Christ.
So creeds just don’t fit very well into their pattern of worship.
R
Reformed
Guest
C
chworkman05
Guest
Good a baisis of a start.
What of the sacraments then?
J
jblake
Guest
Zenas;:
xan
jonathon
I’d forgotten about liturgical, and non-liturgical churches. The former have far more emphasis upon the creeds than the latter.
xan
jonathon
P
puzzleannie
Guest
some do, some don’t
please do not attempt to begin a meaningful discussion with an unprovable inaccurate generalization like this. it is most unhelpful. Better to ask, what credal statement to Lutherans use and how did it develop.
or
Why does not (cite fundamentalist denomination name) have a creed?
R
Reformed
Guest
From the theme of this thread, we shoud use the most famous Protestant Confession to answer that question.Good a baisis of a start.
The Westminster Confession on the sacraments:
Chapter XXVII
Of the Sacraments
I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace,[1] immediately instituted by God,[2] to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him:[3] as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world;[4] and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word.[5]
II. There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.[6]
III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it:[7] but upon the work of the Spirit,[8] and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.[9]
IV. There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.[10]
V. The sacraments of the Old Testament in regard to the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Of Baptism.
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world.
II. The outward element to be used in the sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.
III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.
IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.
V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.
VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered to any person.
R
Reformed
Guest
CHAPTER XXIX.
Of the Lord’s Supper.
I. Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein he was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of his body and blood, called the Lord’s Supper, to be observed in his Church unto the end of the world; for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death, the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other, as members of his mystical body.
II. In this sacrament Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or dead, but a commemoration of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all, and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same; so that the Popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.
III. The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to declare his word of institution to the people, to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation.
IV. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other, alone; as likewise the denial of the cup to the people; worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.
V. The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly, and only, bread and wine, as they were before.
VI. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ’s body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common-sense and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament; and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.
VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
VIII. Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament, yet they receive not the thing signified thereby; but by their unworthy coming thereunto are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with him, so are they unworthy of the Lord’s table, and can not, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto.
If you go on-line, you can click on the numbes for the Scripture proofs to support the particular confession.
Of the Lord’s Supper.
I. Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein he was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of his body and blood, called the Lord’s Supper, to be observed in his Church unto the end of the world; for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death, the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other, as members of his mystical body.
II. In this sacrament Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or dead, but a commemoration of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all, and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same; so that the Popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.
III. The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to declare his word of institution to the people, to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation.
IV. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other, alone; as likewise the denial of the cup to the people; worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.
V. The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly, and only, bread and wine, as they were before.
VI. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ’s body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common-sense and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament; and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.
VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
VIII. Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament, yet they receive not the thing signified thereby; but by their unworthy coming thereunto are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with him, so are they unworthy of the Lord’s table, and can not, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto.
If you go on-line, you can click on the numbes for the Scripture proofs to support the particular confession.
C
Contarini
Guest
Many do. Most of the traditional Protestant denominations do, though they may not do it every week, and except for Anglicans they are more likely to use the Apostles’ than the Nicene Creed.
Most churches that do not use the creeds in worship nonetheless would claim to abide by their teachings. Generally the reason they don’t use them in worship is that they don’t use traditional formulae in general (or at least claim they don’t–of course they usually have formulae of their own). However, given the way Methodists in particular often have to dance around terms like “Catholic Church” in explaining the Creeds, I would not rule out the possibility that many Protestant churches are less comfortable with being constantly reminded of what the Creeds say than they claim to be.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
I thought that most Baptists would claim to agree with the Apostles’ Creed for sure and probably the Nicene Creed as well. But I may be wrong. Baptists are a varied bunch.
Edwin
P
Pier
Guest
The Bible tells us that Christ said:
- “This is my Body”
- “This is my Blood”
- “Do this in memory of me.”
R
Reformed
Guest
Do you understand why creeds and confession are not equal to Holy Scripture? Exclusive Protestant Confessions are not compatible with exclusive Roman Catholic creeds, confessions, and sacred tradition. We really only have the Bible to settle our differences. Please join us in our inter-denominational bible study. Ryan is going through the book of 1 Corinthians. BTW, Ryan is Roman Catholic too.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=273731&page=29
- Status