DAVEH wrote: > 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?
It depends on what Protestants you talk with. In the Pentecostal circles I tend to hang around, the answer would be no. If you are talking about more traditional Protestants such as the Anglican, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc., then yes. DAVEH wrote: > 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. Historically they did, but in more modern times, the Roman Catholics have come to view Protestants as "separated brethren." This change took place in the mid 1960's at Vatican Council II. DaveH wrote: > 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? Not necessarily, but you are correct to discern that it could very likely be a source of schism. I don't know how much you have read about creeds. Philip Schaff wrote a nice three volume set entitled, The Creeds of Christendom. His historical perspective makes examining creeds rather interesting. The Nicene Creed actually has three different forms: 1) the original Nicene (which expanded upon the earlier Apostolic Creed), 2) the enlarged Constantinopolitan version, and 3) the Latin form. The original one had an anathema against the Arians at the end. It reads: "But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable' -- they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church." This anathema was dropped by the Constantinopolitan version, but two additional articles were added. The Latin form, of course, is rather well known in that the addition of "filioque" led to the greatest schism in Christianity, that being between the Roman Catholic Church which had added the word, and the Eastern Orthodox churches which rejected the new doctrine that arose from adding it. The whole debate there is whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone (the original position of the Orthodox churches), or from both the Father and the Son (the newer Roman Catholic position). So, changing of the Nicene Creed is documented in history, and such indeed led to schism, but I don't think the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox consider each other "cults" because they adhere to different forms of this creed. Interestingly, in our recent discussion, Jonathan registered a big objection about how Judy's position on the eternal sonship doctrine would cause someone to reject the Nicene Creed, because a phrase is found there that says, "begotten of the Father before all worlds." Well, that phrase was added in the Constantinopolitan version of 381. This phrase is not present in the original Nicene Creed of 325. So if one congregation prefers the earlier version of the creed instead of the later one, would that congregation be considered a cult? I kind of doubt it. There would have to be something more than that. DaveH wrote: > I'm perceiving that their creeds (such as the NC) > are accepted as doctrinally correct by most of their > adherents..... It depends upon what portion of Protestantism you are talking about. The technical position of all Protestants is that creeds are always subject to Scripture. The lesson of the Reformation is that when creeds are elevated to the status of Scripture, error will follow. This was hotly debated by Martin Luther. Creeds are more important in the Calvinist tradition of Protestantism than they are in other Protestant streams. Schaff writes the following about Baptist Confessions: "The Baptists, like the Congregationalists, lower the authority of general creeds to mere declarations of faith prevailing at the time in the denomination, to which no one is bound to give assent beyond the measure of his conviction; and they multiply the number and elevate the authority of local or congregational creeds and covenants, by which the members of particular congregations voluntarily bind themselves to a certain scheme of doctrine and duty." I have heard that even Roman Catholicism will do this in practice. I was talking with a Roman Catholic a week ago who told me that he could not commit to one phrase in the creed he was asked to embrace, and the priest said that was fine and accepted him into the Catholic Church without that conviction. 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.
