Re: [TruthTalk] The place of creeds in relation to truth

[Lance Muir]

(Nicea)'the glue that holds (believers).together'. Dave, IMO, on this you are historically correct. David, it increasingly appears, is of a mind that holds to a more ideologically 'individualistic'   approach to 'truth'.It's a sort of 'popehood' of all believers approach.You, on the other hand, adhere to a tradition governed by a central authority which establishes the boundaries of (your) belief.   Realistically, IMO, David probably occupies a somewhat similar position to that of the current LDS prophet within his own small group. He does however, acknowledge the existence of a myriad of other 'groups' employing the same methodology and, hierarchical structure.   Dave, I believe you've been down this road prior to my coming on board but, when YOU say JESUS just what is it that you mean? Are you 'orthodox' LDS?   What did you make of Ravi & Richard Mouw's appearance at Salt Lake City recently? Have you heard Ravi's message? Please critique it from your belief perspective.   PS:I genuinely mean no disrespect to David Miller. This is just my perception based on observation through this forum. Especially of late when I saw him in action micromanaging the conduct of others, I found it to be more than a little 'controlling'. I extrapolated from this forum (group) to his own group.   ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 01, 2005 01:53 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The place of creeds in relation to truth David Miller wrote: DAVEH: If a creed compromises perceptions of truth, then couldn't it be a stepping stone on the path to doctrinal error? It could be if the creed was accepted word for word in the same way that Scripture is accepted. DAVEH:  Maybe I'm wrong (again!), but it seems to me that the Nicene Creed is accepted as gospel doctrine by many folks, both Protestant and RCC.    Does it seem that way to you as well? If we tentatively embrace it, however, and our goal is truth and not validation of the creed, then it hopefully is simply helpful in the process of getting to truth. DAVEH: Isn't the Nicene Creed the glue that holds Protestantism together? Once one departs that path, do they not achieve cult status? No, not exactly. The Nicene Creed is embraced also by Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Therefore, this creed does not identify Protestantism at all. DAVEH:  I didn't say it identified Protestantism.  I suggested it is the glue that holds Protestantism together.  Do the RCC folks regard Protestantism as a cult?  I haven't perceived such.  I am guessing that the reason the RCC views Protestantism as a mainstream religion is because they (Protestants) have adopted the Nicene Creed.  If one of the mainstream Protestant denominations were to declare the NC to be doctrinally flawed, would the RCC and other mainline Protestant faiths relegate them to cult status? Part of the problem Protestants had with the Roman Catholic Church during the Reformation was their reliance upon creeds and teachings of the church fathers above that of the Scriptures. This is the crux of what caused Protestants to rebel against Roman Catholicism. DAVEH:  Yet didn't they do the same thing?  Again....I'm perceiving that their creeds (such as the NC) are accepted as doctrinally correct by most of their adherents..... Now there are large segments of Protestantism that really are simply separate institutions that look like miniature Roman Catholic Churches. They sometimes have their own "pope" so to speak (Episcopalians, Anglicans, etc.), and they consider any departure from embraced creeds to be a departure from orthodoxy and Christ. This idea that departing from creeds is indicative of error is the identical view that Roman Catholics had toward Protestants like Martin Luther. Protestants from the Reformed tradition would be examples of those Protestants who place a lot of importance upon creeds. For example, the Westminster Confession would be an example of a creed that establishes Protestantism, and those who depart from it would be considered by Reformed Protestants to be going down the path to cult status. DAVEH:   That's the perception I have from this side of the fence. This was the primary objection to James Arminius when he presented his perspective on predestination. Many accused him of departing from the Westminster Confession of Faith, and therefore, he was supposedly departing from orthodoxy. At this time, his views were considered such by his opponents, but the legacy he left makes it clear that he was not departing from the faith at all. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.