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.
