• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christians--Do Evangelicals Believe Everyone Else Going to Hell?

Izdaari

Emergent Anglo-Catholic
Mainstream Christians tell us repeatedly that the Bible is enough and that we need nothing beyond it. Then why did we need the Nicene Creed?
When they came up with the Nicene Creed, literacy wasn't common, the printing press hadn't been invented, and most people didn't have Bibles. The main purpose of the Nicene Creed, and others like it, was to have an easily understood minimum common standard of doctrine, in other to ward off the many heresies that were gaining popularity at the time.
 

Starfish

Please no sarcasm
When they came up with the Nicene Creed, literacy wasn't common, the printing press hadn't been invented, and most people didn't have Bibles. The main purpose of the Nicene Creed, and others like it, was to have an easily understood minimum common standard of doctrine, in other to ward off the many heresies that were gaining popularity at the time.
Good point. But Bibles are plentiful today. It seems that the Nicene Creed is an addition to the Bible that Christians allow, when other scripture, such as the Book of Mormon, isn't.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
When they came up with the Nicene Creed, literacy wasn't common, the printing press hadn't been invented, and most people didn't have Bibles. The main purpose of the Nicene Creed, and others like it, was to have an easily understood minimum common standard of doctrine, in other to ward off the many heresies that were gaining popularity at the time.
Easily understood? More easily understood than the Bible? Would you mind just explaining to me what new knowledge you gain about God from the Nicene Creed that is not in the Bible? What does it have to say about God that is not already in the Bible or how is the Bible made more clear by this Creed?
 

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
Easily understood? More easily understood than the Bible? Would you mind just explaining to me what new knowledge you gain about God from the Nicene Creed that is not in the Bible? What does it have to say about God that is not already in the Bible or how is the Bible made more clear by this Creed?

There's nothing in the creed that's not in the bible. The point was that bibles were not common. Even the NT consisted only of occasional documents that were circulated among most (but not all) Christian communities, and some of them got more circulation than others. In that environment, it was imperative to standardize doctrine.

And yes, it could be said that the creeds are in some respects easier than the bible. Many of the bible's doctrines are implicit -- Trinity, substitutionary atonement, some features of eschatology -- and it is quite helpful to have them made explicit. The creeds serve to do that, and they do so very well, especially in a context of worship (where they are typically used), and even more so with an illiterate audience. The creeds are simple and formulaic, which makes them memorable (except for the Athanasian Creed, which is far more scholarly, but even it has a poetic order that would have made it accessible to the original audience).
 

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
Good point. But Bibles are plentiful today. It seems that the Nicene Creed is an addition to the Bible that Christians allow, when other scripture, such as the Book of Mormon, isn't.

It's not an addition, it's a summary. The Book of Mormon is an addition.
 
Okay, well since you are determined to pursue this, we don't believe that the "traditional" understanding of Christ is the same as the "biblical" understanding of Christ. We believe in the Christ of the Bible, but not the Christ of the Creeds. One other thing... Please cite the sections and verses in the D&C which you believe contradict the Bible.
Right in the first chapter, 1:29-30, it says that all other religions are false in the sight of God, which goes right along with Joseph Smith's vision. It also says that people can become gods and will "have all power" (132:20), and that God the Father "has a body of flesh and bones, as tangible as man's" (130:22). It also talks about other gods who existed before "this world was" in 121:32, which is polytheism.

I agree with you that Creeds are unneeded, which is why I never bothered to even read most of them, but you're ignoring the fact that Joseph Smith asked God which sect he should join, but God told him that all were an abomination (http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1), that NOBODY else was right. There has always been people that have believed in the Biblical Christ since the first century, so to go ahead and call yourselves Christians now is in direct opposite to what your so-called prophet taught.
 

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
What, specifically, does it summarize? Seriously, you need to give us some examples of how the creeds summarize what the Bible teaches.

It summarizes the Christian doctrine of God and the very broad strokes of eschatology. Thus it encapsulates the Trinity, salvation history, and the nature of the church. It also summarizes the ultimate future in which Jesus will return as judge and savior.
 

Comprehend

Res Ipsa Loquitur
It summarizes the Christian doctrine of God and the very broad strokes of eschatology. Thus it encapsulates the Trinity, salvation history, and the nature of the church. It also summarizes the ultimate future in which Jesus will return as judge and savior.

and where are the examples?
 

Izdaari

Emergent Anglo-Catholic
Easily understood? More easily understood than the Bible? Would you mind just explaining to me what new knowledge you gain about God from the Nicene Creed that is not in the Bible? What does it have to say about God that is not already in the Bible or how is the Bible made more clear by this Creed?
It's shorter than the Bible and thus much more easily memorized. Pretty handy for people who didn't have access to a Bible. Other than that, Dunemeister already answered for me. :cool:

But anyway... I'm not necessarily saying we need the Nicene Creed today; nor am I saying we don't. I was just explaining its history and purpose, not trying to take sides in a traditional Christians vs. LDS debate.
 

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
and where are the examples?

I can see that you are going to be an unnecessarily difficult discussion partner. Okay, here goes, using the Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

This summarizes the doctrine of creational monotheism. That is, God alone - absolutely without advisors or collaborators or assistants or servants - created all other things. This idea Christians inherited directly from their Jewish heritage.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

This summarizes the relationship of the divine in the Son with the divine in the Father. It says that Jesus was begotten, but not made, of God. He's of "one substance" with the Father, which basically means that although there is one and only one God, both the Father and the Son are equally divine. This does not represent a division of God into two separate beings or parts.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Here we have a summary of Pneumatology (doctrine of the Holy Spirit), ecclesiology (doctrine of the Church), soteriology (doctrine of salvation), and eschatology (doctrine of ultimate ends). We find that the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father and the Son, yet together with the Father and the Son is worthy of worship. The unity of the Church, based on a succession from the original apostles is affirmed. There is one baptism for the remission of sins (salvation), and the hope of a new world to come is stated.

So as you can see, the creeds are theologically rich statements that bear plenty of unpacking. But they are certainly useful summaries of biblical doctrines. The creeds don't add to scriptural teaching. Now, you may disagree whether these doctrines are in fact taught in scripture, but that's not the point. The point is that they are intended to do so.

So there, you have your examples made more explicit.
 

Comprehend

Res Ipsa Loquitur
I can see that you are going to be an unnecessarily difficult discussion partner. Okay, here goes, using the Nicene Creed:



This summarizes the doctrine of creational monotheism. That is, God alone - absolutely without advisors or collaborators or assistants or servants - created all other things. This idea Christians inherited directly from their Jewish heritage.



This summarizes the relationship of the divine in the Son with the divine in the Father. It says that Jesus was begotten, but not made, of God. He's of "one substance" with the Father, which basically means that although there is one and only one God, both the Father and the Son are equally divine. This does not represent a division of God into two separate beings or parts.



Here we have a summary of Pneumatology (doctrine of the Holy Spirit), ecclesiology (doctrine of the Church), soteriology (doctrine of salvation), and eschatology (doctrine of ultimate ends). We find that the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father and the Son, yet together with the Father and the Son is worthy of worship. The unity of the Church, based on a succession from the original apostles is affirmed. There is one baptism for the remission of sins (salvation), and the hope of a new world to come is stated.

So as you can see, the creeds are theologically rich statements that bear plenty of unpacking. But they are certainly useful summaries of biblical doctrines. The creeds don't add to scriptural teaching. Now, you may disagree whether these doctrines are in fact taught in scripture, but that's not the point. The point is that they are intended to do so.

So there, you have your examples made more explicit.

LOL. No, Katzpur was asking for examples of those doctrines (espoused in the Creed)from the bible... Nobody needed help translating the creed from English to English. I hope you didn't spend too much time on that.

For Ex: Where are the scriptures that teach the Trinity that the Creed is "summarizing" since most MSC's admit the doctrine of the Trinity isn't found in the bible?

God made earth by himself? what does your bible say at Genesis 1:26
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
He's of "one substance" with the Father, which basically means that although there is one and only one God, both the Father and the Son are equally divine. This does not represent a division of God into two separate beings or parts.
The Bible does not refer to the Father and the Son as being "one substance" anywhere. It's impossible to summarize something that is neither stated nor implied by scripture. This is an expansion and extrapolation of what scripture says, not a summary.

Now, you may disagree whether these doctrines are in fact taught in scripture, but that's not the point. The point is that they are intended to do so.
So the creeds are summarizing not what the Bible does teach but what it intended to teach? :rolleyes: If these doctrines are not taught in scripture, I'd say it's very much the point.
 

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
The Bible does not refer to the Father and the Son as being "one substance" anywhere. It's impossible to summarize something that is neither stated nor implied by scripture. This is an expansion and extrapolation of what scripture says, not a summary.

It's certainly implied. There is one and only one God, yet both Jesus and the Father are divine in exactly the same way. Putting that in a philosophically rigorous manner (in the fourth century), they are "one substance." So yes, it's a summary. And because it's a summary, it uses different words to speak of the same concept.

So the creeds are summarizing not what the Bible does teach but what it intended to teach? :rolleyes: If these doctrines are not taught in scripture, I'd say it's very much the point.

The creeds are intended to summarize what the bible teaches. You and I disagree about whether they do so successfully.
 

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
LOL. No, Katzpur was asking for examples of those doctrines (espoused in the Creed)from the bible... Nobody needed help translating the creed from English to English. I hope you didn't spend too much time on that.

For Ex: Where are the scriptures that teach the Trinity that the Creed is "summarizing" since most MSC's admit the doctrine of the Trinity isn't found in the bible?

God made earth by himself? what does your bible say at Genesis 1:26

What are MSCs?

This is getting WAY past the topic of this thread, but I restate what I've said elsewhere on this topic. My bible says the same as yours:

Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’

"Us" does not imply plurality. Here God is speaking in the same way as, say, the Queen of England does when she says "we" to mean "I". In linguistic terms, this is called "the plurality of majesty."

If it meant actual plurality, we would expect the Jewish people to believe in many gods. But they don't. So it doesn't.
 

budhabee

Member
No, humans cannot fully understand the nature of God, but he made sure to tell us everything about him that we do need to know. The Bible is very clear that only those who have faith in Christ will be saved. To say that it is possible that people without faith in Christ might be saved just proves you've never read the Bible. The Bible says over and over that those who believe will be saved, and those who do not believe will be condemned. I can understand the desire to try and find other ways for people to be saved, but the Bible is very clear that there is no other way. How is lying to someone about how to be saved going to help them become saved? If there were another way to be saved then you would be able to quote some scripture proving it, instead of a strawman argument about humans being incapable of fully understanding God.

Howdy Ratiocinative. This us vs them thing is getting tiresome. Something is wrong with this way of thinking. Jesus said: "I am not a divider. Do I look like a divider?"
I believe this quote comes from the Nag Hammadi. Our Lord could not be leaving out so many people who have never even heard of the bible or read it due to where they live and the upbringing they are subjected to. What say you?

Budhabee
 

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
Howdy Ratiocinative. This us vs them thing is getting tiresome. Something is wrong with this way of thinking. Jesus said: "I am not a divider. Do I look like a divider?"
I believe this quote comes from the Nag Hammadi. Our Lord could not be leaving out so many people who have never even heard of the bible or read it due to where they live and the upbringing they are subjected to. What say you?

Budhabee

Actual quote from Jesus: "Do not think that I came to bring peace. I did not come to bring peace but a sword." Jesus claimed to be the Lord of the universe. If Jesus is Lord, then others who make pretensions to Lordship are not the ultimate powers they claim to be. Thus, Jesus sets himself against all who would oppose him. It's hard to imagine a more contrary position to take.
 
Top