"No Creed but the Bible"

[ErikJohnson]

I posted this on another thread in response to a query from a poster. But as we were a bit off-topic over there—I thought I would give it a thread of its own. The poster was challenging the legitimacy of the ancient Christian Creeds. Indeed, his signature reads: “No creed but the Bible”—as though banishment of the Creeds would somehow improve the Christian Faith.

Pastor John Piper has written a short defense of the Creeds and their use of non-Biblical language. You can find the whole article here:

Thoughts on the Sufficiency of Scripture :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

I’ll call out what I think are the most relevant parts and offer them up for comment—

My biographical message at the pastors’ conference this year was on Athanasius who was born in A. D. 298. So I spent a good bit of time studying the doctrinal disputes of the fourth century. The main dispute was over the deity of Christ. Arius (and the Arians) said that the Son of God was a creature and did not always exist. Athanasius defended the eternal deity of the Son and helped win that battle with the wording of the Council of Nicaea: “We believe in . . . the Son of God . . . of the essence of the Father, God of God, and Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.”

One surprising fact that I did not expect to find was that the heretics protested most loudly over the non-scriptural language of the orthodox creed. They pointed out that the phrases, “of one essence with the Father,” and “one substance with the Father” were not in the Bible. The heretics demanded “no creed but the Bible” precisely so that they could use biblical language to evade biblical truth. For example, they would happily call Christ “Son of God,” and then argue that, like all sons, he must have had a beginning.

...

There are many today who would demand “no creed but the Bible” the same way the Arians did. But we should learn from history that biblical language is not enough when it comes to defending the meaning of biblical language. R. P. C. Hanson explained the process like this: “Theologians of the Christian Church were slowly driven to a realization that the deepest questions which face Christianity cannot be answered in purely biblical language, because the questions are about the meaning of biblical language itself”

I think Piper makes a lot of sense here, and defends the Creeds as well as anyone I've read. And I've come to agree with him. What do others think? I’d particularly like to hear from any Latter-Day Saints (LDS) out there….

;0)

--Erik

[Traveler]

I posted this on another thread in response to a query from a poster. But as we were a bit off-topic over there—I thought I would give it a thread of its own. The poster was challenging the legitimacy of the ancient Christian Creeds. Indeed, his signature reads: “No creed but the Bible”—as though banishment of the Creeds would somehow improve the Christian Faith.

Pastor John Piper has written a short defense of the Creeds and their use of non-Biblical language. You can find the whole article here:

Thoughts on the Sufficiency of Scripture :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

I’ll call out what I think are the most relevant parts and offer them up for comment—

My biographical message at the pastors’ conference this year was on Athanasius who was born in A. D. 298. So I spent a good bit of time studying the doctrinal disputes of the fourth century. The main dispute was over the deity of Christ. Arius (and the Arians) said that the Son of God was a creature and did not always exist. Athanasius defended the eternal deity of the Son and helped win that battle with the wording of the Council of Nicaea: “We believe in . . . the Son of God . . . of the essence of the Father, God of God, and Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.”

One surprising fact that I did not expect to find was that the heretics protested most loudly over the non-scriptural language of the orthodox creed. They pointed out that the phrases, “of one essence with the Father,” and “one substance with the Father” were not in the Bible. The heretics demanded “no creed but the Bible” precisely so that they could use biblical language to evade biblical truth. For example, they would happily call Christ “Son of God,” and then argue that, like all sons, he must have had a beginning.

...

There are many today who would demand “no creed but the Bible” the same way the Arians did. But we should learn from history that biblical language is not enough when it comes to defending the meaning of biblical language. R. P. C. Hanson explained the process like this: “Theologians of the Christian Church were slowly driven to a realization that the deepest questions which face Christianity cannot be answered in purely biblical language, because the questions are about the meaning of biblical language itself”

I think Piper makes a lot of sense here, and defends the Creeds as well as anyone I've read. And I've come to agree with him. What do others think? I’d particularly like to hear from any Latter-Day Arians (LDS) out there….

;0)

--Erik

According to Paul – Jesus pointed some Apostles, some Prophets for a unity of the faith. The LDS stand is that the Bible scriptures used today as canon were not complete and thus the need for various Creeds. Whoever, it is also the LDS view that G-d has never used Creeds over scripture to inform and maintain his “Saints” within their faith and covenants.

In general it is LDS understanding that the leadership of the church fell into apostasy in seeking to resolve conflicts by creeds rather than by revelation that G-d sends through Apostles and Prophets (which in times past have become our scripture). When Jesus spoke to the Prophet Joseph Smith he referred to the Creeds as an Abomination. I understand an abomination to mean the claim to come from G-d but in reality created by men.

The Traveler

[ErikJohnson]

According to Paul – Jesus pointed some Apostles, some Prophets for a unity of the faith.

Hey Traveler, perhaps I missed it, but where does Paul say that Jesus appointed Prophets? Certainly Paul writes that some have the gift of prophecy, but I can't recall what you are saying. Jesus called John the Baptist the "greatest" (Luke 7:28) but also indicated John was the end of the era of the Prophets ("The Law and the Prophets were until John"--Luke 16:16).

The LDS stand is that the Bible scriptures used today as canon were not complete and thus the need for various Creeds. Whoever, it is also the LDS view that G-d has never used Creeds over scripture to inform and maintain his “Saints” within their faith and covenants.

Out of curiosity, aren't the LDS "Articles of Faith" a creed?

--Erik

[THIRDpersonviewer]

Hey Traveler, perhaps I missed it, but where does Paul say that Jesus appointed Prophets? Certainly Paul writes that some have the gift of prophecy, but I can't recall what you are saying. Jesus called John the Baptist the "greatest" (Luke 7:28) but also indicated John was the end of the era of the Prophets ("The Law and the Prophets were until John"--Luke 16:16).

Out of curiosity, aren't the LDS "Articles of Faith" a creed?

--Erik

Ephesians 4:11

The Articles of Faith is not a creed. It was a statement of what we believe, written in what is called the Wentworth letter. It is a summary of some basic doctrines that we hold to be true, and an early history of the Church. It was written to a man who was writing a history of the New Hampshire, and since the coming forth of the Church was in the proposed history, it was written to inform. It however was excluded as the author, conveniently, wrote the history up to the year 1819.

[ErikJohnson]

Ephesians 4:11

I definitely agree there's such a thing as the gift of prophecy and the Lord gave some to be prophets (as Ephesians 4:8-11 makes clear: "gave gifts to men... gave... some to be prophets"). But I think this serves a different use and intent than "Prophets" referred to in Luke 16:16 and elsewhere. None-the-less, I'll concede your point for the time being and not argue over Prophets vs. prophets.

The Articles of Faith is not a creed. It was a statement of what we believe, written in what is called the Wentworth letter. It is a summary of some basic doctrines that we hold to be true...QUOTE]

This would seem to qualify it as a creed, if Dictionary.com is to be believed...

--Erik

[Traveler]

I definitely agree there's such a thing as the gift of prophecy and the Lord gave some to be prophets (as Ephesians 4:8-11 makes clear: "gave gifts to men... gave... some to be prophets"). But I think this serves a different use and intent than "Prophets" referred to in Luke 16:16 and elsewhere. None-the-less, I'll concede your point for the time being and not argue over Prophets vs. prophets.

This would seem to qualify it as a creed, if Dictionary.com is to be believed...

--Erik

Come, lets us reason together concerning Ephesians chapter 4. The reference in verse 8 is specific to gifts when given by Jesus as he "ascended up on high". The calling of the apostles and prophets and other officers in the organization of his church took place prior to his ascension. For example, we see that Jesus “chose” and “ordained” his apostles earlier in his ministry.

Note in verse 12 that part of the reason for those called to serve in the “Kingdom” organization was for the “work of the ministry”, verse 13 specifies that they are needed for the “unity of the faith”. Verse 14 indicates that they are necessary to prevent the Christians that follow to not be “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.”

Verses 15 and 16 are specific to the organization of the “Kingdom” and those that serve. Note the concepts of “whole body fitly joined together”

The “Articles of faith” are scripture received by a “Prophet, seer and revelator” that was also an ordained apostle – ordained by the hands of Peter, James and John.

Rather than criticize the efforts brought about by the various “councils” – I would point out that the “additional” scriptures offered by the LDS are given by revelation, unanimously sustained by the quorum of apostles and then sustained by a “solemn assembly” of the church.

The Traveler

[ErikJohnson]

Come, lets us reason together concerning Ephesians chapter 4. The reference in verse 8 is specific to gifts when given by Jesus as he "ascended up on high". The calling of the apostles and prophets and other officers in the organization of his church took place prior to his ascension. For example, we see that Jesus “chose” and “ordained” his apostles earlier in his ministry.

You seem to be putting a lot of effort into Ephesians 4, Traveler. But I don't think the word "ordain" or "ordained" even appears in the New Testament. That said, I fully agree that God bestows the gift of prophecy and gives some to be prophets--and does so for the benefit of His Church.

The “Articles of faith” are scripture received by a “Prophet, seer and revelator” that was also an ordained apostle – ordained by the hands of Peter, James and John.

Rather than criticize the efforts brought about by the various “councils” – I would point out that the “additional” scriptures offered by the LDS are given by revelation, unanimously sustained by the quorum of apostles and then sustained by a “solemn assembly” of the church.

The Traveler

Are the LDS Articles of Faith "Scripture" (and not a creed)? THIRDpersonviewer said they were merely part of a letter intended to be incorporated into a history of New Hampshire. Seems like a curious origin for Scripture. Are you sure about this?

--Erik

[Snow]

I posted this on another thread in response to a query from a poster. But as we were a bit off-topic over there—I thought I would give it a thread of its own. The poster was challenging the legitimacy of the ancient Christian Creeds. Indeed, his signature reads: “No creed but the Bible”—as though banishment of the Creeds would somehow improve the Christian Faith.

Pastor John Piper has written a short defense of the Creeds and their use of non-Biblical language. You can find the whole article here:

Thoughts on the Sufficiency of Scripture :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

I’ll call out what I think are the most relevant parts and offer them up for comment—

My biographical message at the pastors’ conference this year was on Athanasius who was born in A. D. 298. So I spent a good bit of time studying the doctrinal disputes of the fourth century. The main dispute was over the deity of Christ. Arius (and the Arians) said that the Son of God was a creature and did not always exist. Athanasius defended the eternal deity of the Son and helped win that battle with the wording of the Council of Nicaea: “We believe in . . . the Son of God . . . of the essence of the Father, God of God, and Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.”

One surprising fact that I did not expect to find was that the heretics protested most loudly over the non-scriptural language of the orthodox creed. They pointed out that the phrases, “of one essence with the Father,” and “one substance with the Father” were not in the Bible. The heretics demanded “no creed but the Bible” precisely so that they could use biblical language to evade biblical truth. For example, they would happily call Christ “Son of God,” and then argue that, like all sons, he must have had a beginning.

...

There are many today who would demand “no creed but the Bible” the same way the Arians did. But we should learn from history that biblical language is not enough when it comes to defending the meaning of biblical language. R. P. C. Hanson explained the process like this: “Theologians of the Christian Church were slowly driven to a realization that the deepest questions which face Christianity cannot be answered in purely biblical language, because the questions are about the meaning of biblical language itself”

I think Piper makes a lot of sense here, and defends the Creeds as well as anyone I've read. And I've come to agree with him. What do others think? I’d particularly like to hear from any Latter-Day Saints (LDS) out there….

;0)

--Erik

This sounds a little nutty... "biblical language is not enough when it comes to defending the meaning of biblical language" but it misses the crux of the matter when it comes to the creeds. It's not just the language that's the problem. It's the content of the creeds. They aren't just phrased with the language of Greek philosophy, they are built with non-biblical ideas from Greek philosophy/

[jadams_4040]

Hey Traveler, perhaps I missed it, but where does Paul say that Jesus appointed Prophets? Certainly Paul writes that some have the gift of prophecy, but I can't recall what you are saying. Jesus called John the Baptist the "greatest" (Luke 7:28) but also indicated John was the end of the era of the Prophets ("The Law and the Prophets were until John"--Luke 16:16).

Out of curiosity, aren't the LDS "Articles of Faith" a creed?

--Erik

And having seen this discussion progress along, i just would like to ask a question of you on the jhon the baptist being the greatest prophet for all those born of women, Why do you suppose that is true? You do beleive in baptism or not?:)

[Traveler]

You seem to be putting a lot of effort into Ephesians 4, Traveler. But I don't think the word "ordain" or "ordained" even appears in the New Testament. That said, I fully agree that God bestows the gift of prophecy and gives some to be prophets--and does so for the benefit of His Church.

Are the LDS Articles of Faith "Scripture" (and not a creed)? THIRDpersonviewer said they were merely part of a letter intended to be incorporated into a history of New Hampshire. Seems like a curious origin for Scripture. Are you sure about this?

--Erik

Erik: I am glad to help you in any way I can to understand the scriptures. Concerning the ordaining of the Apostles - you might like to become more familiar with John 15:16. The King James Version (most recognized English version) uses the word “ordain”. I realize other versions use words like “appoint” but I do not think the concept of direct assignment has been lost – especially concerning his “Apostles”. BTW I recommend the Gospel of John as an important document to Christians concerning arguments use by Jesus concerning many of the noted “Christian” debates of our era – such as faith vs works.

The LDS “Articles of Faith” can be found in the LDS standard scripture work called the “Pearl of Great Price”.

The Traveler

[AnthonyB]

Erik,

I wasn’t going to discuss on these forums my stance about creeds but since you seem determined to discuss it, (and quoted part of my signature) I feel compelled to defend my beliefs.

I could quite happily assent to both the Nicene and Chalcedon creeds, and if they existed to merely point out scriptural beliefs and to act as teaching tools then I would have no qualms with them. People have the right to their opinions and these creeds represent the opinions of some learned men in the history of the church. The vast majority of believers who have looked at Scripture have come to views akin to that expressed in the creeds even often from traditions that were originally hostile or indifferent to them.

However the creeds were never merely that. They were created in a spirit of sectarianism. To damn those who in good conscious differed and divide the church, they were used by many "states" as tools to kill those who would not conform (often simply believers who wished no more to follow Christ as best they could) and steal the unity of the body of Christ.

How can any look at the petty ecclesiastical politics, the insidious imperial interfering and the unloving bullying tactics that lead to those documents and see the loving hand of our Saviour in them. True they might be but truth without love is a clanging cymbal. Men may misuse even the noblest truths to ill ends, but the creeds were at their very conception tools of ignoble purposes. Undoubtedly many came to the councils in good conscious but one church created through imperial dictate and not by love and the word of God is the results of those councils.

The other purpose the creeds were used for was to supplant the word of God itself. Recite the creed in a service and you know the "truth" (or what the church authorities wanted you to know) and so there is no need to read the Bible itself. How many men lived lives ignorant of even any of the most basic parts of our Lord’s gospel because the Bible was denied them and instead they got to place their faith in the words of man recorded in the creeds.

However back to my question on previous thread, the Nicene Creed includes "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins", do you agree with that? If not on what authority you deny part of the creeds? Why are parts of the creeds essential for defining a believer but others not so?

[ErikJohnson]

Erik: I am glad to help you in any way I can to understand the scriptures. Concerning the ordaining of the Apostles - you might like to become more familiar with John 15:16. The King James Version (most recognized English version) uses the word “ordain”. I realize other versions use words like “appoint” but I do not think the concept of direct assignment has been lost – especially concerning his “Apostles”. BTW I recommend the Gospel of John as an important document to Christians concerning arguments use by Jesus concerning many of the noted “Christian” debates of our era – such as faith vs works.

The LDS “Articles of Faith” can be found in the LDS standard scripture work called the “Pearl of Great Price”.

The Traveler

Old school--but you're quite correct (And I'm always happy to take Biblical correction).

Thanks Traveler,

--Erik

[prisonchaplain]

IMHO, Creeds, or Statements/Articles of Faith are unifying teachings that a group of believers aligns themselves with. Done right, they are prioritizations and explanations of Scriptural basics--core truths.

Concerning prophets, most Christian churches have them, but do not give them a church office or title. Some Pentecostal and Charismatic churches do have officially recognized prophets. Others say, "Oh, s/he operates in the prophetic." Or, "That sister brought a powerful prophetic word this week."

BUT, what shall we do with Joel's prophecy, which says that in the last days both sons and daughters would prophesy...both menservants and maidservants? I see prophecy being far more wide-spread than a limited church office can contain in that passage.

[VisionOfLehi]

Prison... We as LDS don't believe that the sustained Prophets, Seers, and Revelators are the ONLY Prophets, Seers, and Revelators.

We just believe that they're the only ones who can Prophesy, See, and and receive Revelation concerning the entire Church.

I have talked to members who have received powerful visions of their own that have happened to come true. And then, of course, there's our belief in personal revelation...

:)

[Traveler]

IMHO, Creeds, or Statements/Articles of Faith are unifying teachings that a group of believers aligns themselves with. Done right, they are prioritizations and explanations of Scriptural basics--core truths.

Concerning prophets, most Christian churches have them, but do not give them a church office or title. Some Pentecostal and Charismatic churches do have officially recognized prophets. Others say, "Oh, s/he operates in the prophetic." Or, "That sister brought a powerful prophetic word this week."

BUT, what shall we do with Joel's prophecy, which says that in the last days both sons and daughters would prophesy...both menservants and maidservants? I see prophecy being far more wide-spread than a limited church office can contain in that passage.

I do not intend to criticize but I think you may have mixed signals in comparing your definition of prophets with that held by LDS and what we believe the scriptures are referring to in Eph 4 - it is comparing apples to rocks.

It is our understanding that prophets, as designated, speak the mind and will of G-d – or if you will “The word of G-d”. As the ancient scriptures (ie the Bible) is the word of G-d and should be studied and used as a foundation for doctrines of the church which is the body of Christ, so should the utterances of prophets according to their apointment be recorded and respected as scripture. I do not believe but that very few Christian churches uphold their prophets as a “foundation” of doctrine and prophesy, as do the LDS. I would be surprised to learn that other Christians respect their prophets as do the LDS (and ancient Christians) – especially an Evangelical Christian Church.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, you make a great point. The modern evangelical Christian understanding of prophet and gift of prophecy (and the viewpoints within evangelicalism are varied) is far different from the LDS form--which does indeed seem very Old Testament to me.

[ErikJohnson]

Erik,

However back to my question on previous thread, the Nicene Creed includes "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins", do you agree with that?

Appreciate your response, AnthonyB, and I apologize for the slowness of my own (work has been insane the past week). Regarding your question, the answer is yes. The language "one baptism" is from Ephesians 4:5. That baptism is "for" the forgiveness of sins (together with repentance) is supported by Acts 2:38...

--Erik

[jms.mills]

Out of curiosity, aren't the LDS "Articles of Faith" a creed?

In a strict "dictionary" definition of creed, I am sure the Articles of Faith could be deemed the "LDS creed." However, one thing that must be kept in mind is the origin of the "LDS creed" (if we use the dictionary's definition) when compared with origin of the creeds of other Christian faiths.

The difference is simple: The Articles of Faith were writings by a Prophet of God (via direct revelation). Whereas the creeds of other faiths came from a "meeting of the minds."

I could be wrong... but I have never really heard anyone of other faiths state that the Christian creeds are on par with the rest of the scriptures (i.e. the Bible). My question: If the creeds (of mainstream Christian faiths) are viewed as being an "authoritative" (dare I say inspired) statement of correct, pure Christian doctrine, then why are the creeds not considered scripture? (This is an honest question, with no malice intended).

JM

[rameumptom]

Hey Traveler, perhaps I missed it, but where does Paul say that Jesus appointed Prophets? Certainly Paul writes that some have the gift of prophecy, but I can't recall what you are saying. Jesus called John the Baptist the "greatest" (Luke 7:28) but also indicated John was the end of the era of the Prophets ("The Law and the Prophets were until John"--Luke 16:16).

Out of curiosity, aren't the LDS "Articles of Faith" a creed?

--Erik

Actually, the term "law and the prophets" does not mean an end to the prophets, but an end to the prophetic teachings that had to do with the Law of Moses.

John the Revelator noted that in the last days there would be two prophets prophesying in Jerusalem during Armageddon. If there had been an end to prophets, then there would be no need for two more in that winding up scene.

Ephesians 4:11-14 tells us that prophets and apostles are still needed. And btw, John the Baptist was not the last prophet, as the book of Acts tells us of other prophets, including Agabus. Is it that Agabus missed Jesus' note on the end of the era of the prophets, or perhaps a new era of prophets had already begun?

Creeds were actually condemned by the Lord. Some sects of Jews had built a set of creeds to enhance the writings of Moses. Some of them viewed it as a protective wall around the Torah, to ensure no one came close to breaking the commandments. But Jesus attacked them for their creeds, such as not being able to do good works on Sabbath.

The difference between the creeds and the Articles of Faith, at least for LDS, is twofold. First, the AoF do not go into specifics, but are a basic set of beliefs. The AoF have been brought before the Church and accepted as scripture, so is not viewed as a creed.

The Creeds of classic Christianity are different. While the AoF describes basic LDS beliefs, the creeds often demand strong obedience to the statements, or the person cannot be saved.

For example, the Athanasius Creed begins:

Whosoever will be saved,

before all things it is is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith.

Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled,

without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

It then demands one believe in the Trinitarian notion of God. You'll note that the AoF does not proscribe a specificity for what entails God, but simply states,

We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

No where is there a requirement for others to believe it in order to be saved.

The scholar, Harold Bloom, noted in his book American Religion that one of the major changes in the Baptist church was their new focus on creeds. It has caused a power struggle in that religion (and others), as many Baptists used to pride themselves on not having any required creeds for salvation, except faith on Christ. Their creedal change is so pronounced, that Bloom calls the "conservative Southern Baptists" the "Know Nothing" Baptists.

[Pa Pa]

Hey Traveler, perhaps I missed it, but where does Paul say that Jesus appointed Prophets? Certainly Paul writes that some have the gift of prophecy, but I can't recall what you are saying. Jesus called John the Baptist the "greatest" (Luke 7:28) but also indicated John was the end of the era of the Prophets ("The Law and the Prophets were until John"--Luke 16:16).

Out of curiosity, aren't the LDS "Articles of Faith" a creed?

--Erik

Eph 4: 10-13

10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

[lostnfound]

John Piper is awesome by the way!