So then:
 
1. Creeds are the problem
2. Some allow them (creeds) more authority than the WOG 
3. Jesus founded a church with no creeds
4. The Apostles were biblicists
5. Arius' questions..make sense
6. There exists no scriptural precedent for judging heresy & hereticks
 
Thanks,
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 02, 2005 09:52
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Creeds and the Bob the Builder mentality..

jt: I submit that these creeds are the problem and the men who came up with them had a "Builder Bob" mentality. They were going to "fix it!!" and it sounds as though they actually thought they could amongst all the political intrigue and infighting and vying for favor with their half pagan Emperor who had the last word. 
 
I have to confess that [horrors!!] for the first time I have been reading some writings by the Church Fathers to try and sort through some of this Creed business on TT because I can not understand why some of you  allow them more authority and deference than the Word of God itself.  I note that by the time of Athanasius and the Council at Nicea what was calling itself the Church [which was by no means every believer] were well off the rails. Constantine and his sons wanted unity for the sake of Empire and political expediency and Truth was not a high priority.  
 
In contrast the Church that Jesus founded had no creeds and no doctrine of "eternal Sonship" - The apostles were Biblicists who let God be God.  Look at how it functioned from the start.  Peter exhorts the people by God's Word.  Those who gladly received his words were baptized and that day 3,000 souls were added to them [Acts 2:41,47].  This is power without force. Then we see over and over in the book of Acts how the Word grew [Acts 12:24; 19:20] and how God added to the Church daily those who were being saved. 
 
I had never studied what Arius taught and still don't know all of it but from what I have read so far his questions make a lot of sense. He asks:
 
1) If the Son were, [according to Athanasius interpretation] eternally existent with God, He would not have been ignorant of the Day [of His return Mark 13:4,32] but would have known it as the Word [God in His Omnipotence].
 
2) Nor would He have been forsaken [on the cross] if he was co-existent...
 
3) Nor would he have had to pray at all... because being the Word, he would have needed nothing.
 
What's wrong with these questions?  Dealing with heresy and hereticks was the justification for why these creeds came into being.  However there is no precedent for this in scripture either. Jesus said to "leave them alone, it was the blind leading the blind"  Paul counselled putting one man who refused to repent out for a period of time and later said that even if someone preaches from wrong motives we should rejoice because Jesus name is being lifted up. [my paraphrase] - John wrote that their teaching would reveal those in error but we (who are in Christ) have an anointing from the Holy One and we need not fear them.  I'd sure rather run with the Biblicists than be at the mercy of those who took to heart and followed the creeds - and I'm sure most of you have read enough Church History to know the outcome.  Nothing but bloodshed and evil ever since.
 
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 05:42:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Given the ever present infighting over 'the place of creeds in relation to truth' we shall see. You, of course, experience similar contentiousness from and within your own tradition. You may not have as many but, the wrangling is just as bitter with each convinced of it's own intrinsic 'rightness' and your 'wrongness'.
Lance Muir wrote: I wouldn't necessarily agree, Dave. When employing the adjective 'cultic' and, when one reviews the cavalier even dismissive tone of some on TT in 2004 with respect to 'the faith once delivered...' ,the winner of the 'most accused' award might not be you.
 
DAVEH:  Though I wish it were not so, I've been here longer and seen a bit more than you may be aware.
Please try harder in 2005.
DAVEH:   Hmmmmmm......I think with the nearly unanimous vote of most TTers, I'll continue wearing the big C badge this year.  But I'll just consider it a symbol of Christianity.     :-)
Dave Hansen wrote:
DAVEH:  FWIW....I think I'm the one who has been accused of such more than any others.
  <>From: "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jonathan:  Yes DaveH.  You are correct.  Hence the cultic beliefs of some on this forum.
===============================================
Without doubt, you hold the record Dave.:-)
Terry

Reply via email to