|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The Creed and The Bible
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
In AD381 Christianity was defined by the Nicene Creed as a belief in:
• The Trinity
• The Church
• Baptism
• Resurrection
• Life of the World to Come
1,631 years later, Christianity often seems to be defined as belief in the Bible.
If the Bible is so important to the Christian faith, why wasn’t it mentioned in the Creed? Is recourse to the scriptures a new innovation that was added to the faith long after Jesus; was it dropped in the first 400 years and then rediscovered, or was it simply not mentioned in the Creed for some reason?
Forgive my ignorance of my own faith, but I’ve been, for a while now, trying to work out what I believe about this rather odd document we call the Bible, and what it’s reasonable to believe about it.
[ 01. December 2012, 10:54: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I would be wary of saying the creed "defines Christianity." It defines the essentials of Christian belief, which is not the same thing since [being] a Christian is a good deal more than believing a set of propositions.
[ 04. September 2012, 15:35: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Yes, I agree. The Creeds express the essentials of the Christian faith but they shouldn't be used in a reductionistic way.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
1,631 years later, Christianity often seems to be defined as belief in the Bible.
If the Bible is so important to the Christian faith, why wasn’t it mentioned in the Creed? Is recourse to the scriptures a new innovation that was added to the faith long after Jesus; was it dropped in the first 400 years and then rediscovered, or was it simply not mentioned in the Creed for some reason?
The Marcionite controversy may give you some idea of how the early Church viewed scripture. Marcion's attempt to get rid of vast quantities of it got him the boot.
I suspect that folks would say that "the Church" subsumes the scriptures. I certainly wouldn't assume that there was ever a time when the Church thought that scriptures were unimportant.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
The Creed doesn't mention the Bible because by the time it was written the biblical canon was well established.
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The Creed doesn't mention the Bible because by the time it was written the biblical canon was well established.
I'm not sure that's a sound interpretive principle. The Church was well-established, but that's mentioned.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I would be wary of saying the creed "defines Christianity." It defines the essentials of Christian belief, which is not the same thing since [being] a Christian is a good deal more than believing a set of propositions.
Yes, but I'm using the term in the same sense when I say that modern day Christianity is "defined" as belief in the Bible.
Do you think the a belief of some proposition about the status of the Bible is different from a belief in the things listed in the Creed?
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
I'm not sure that's a sound interpretive principle. The Church was well-established, but that's mentioned.
Was it so well established? The Catholic bishops fought tooth and nail to convince the emperor that they and their followers were the Church, and that the Arminians weren't. What seems clear to us today was hanging by a thread. But no one was arguing about the biblical canon that I can think of.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Could we, perhaps, say that the Creed's claim that the Church is apostolic grounds the Church's identity in the Bible?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
I'm not sure that's a sound interpretive principle. The Church was well-established, but that's mentioned.
Was it so well established? The Catholic bishops fought tooth and nail to convince the emperor that they and their followers were the Church, and that the Arminians weren't. What seems clear to us today was hanging by a thread. But no one was arguing about the biblical canon that I can think of.
Nobody was arguing that the church wasn't one, holy, catholic, or apostolic either.
(As an aside: Your point that nobody was arguing the biblical canon in the 4th century is a good one to remember when talking about the Protestants tossing out the deuterocanonicals in the 16th.)
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Could we, perhaps, say that the Creed's claim that the Church is apostolic grounds the Church's identity in the Bible?
Almost. It grounds it in the Apostolic tradition, which includes the Bible as its centerpiece but is not exhausted thereby.
[ 04. September 2012, 15:58: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Do you think the a belief of some proposition about the status of the Bible is different from a belief in the things listed in the Creed?
Yes. If the NT had never been written, we could still have Christianity. Indeed, we did for many years before it was written. If the early Christians had somehow been suddenly ejected from the empire and nobody remembered to pack their copy of the Old Testament as they fled, we could still have the Church. The Trinity, the Incarnation, the Church, baptism, and bodily resurrection are foundational. The Bible, clearly less so.
[ 04. September 2012, 16:01: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Nobody was arguing that the church wasn't one, holy, catholic, or apostolic either.
Constantine gave every indication that he needed to be convinced, and never quite made a choice between the Catholic faith and the Arminian heresy. He was baptized by an Arminian bishop at the end of his life.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Nobody was arguing that the church wasn't one, holy, catholic, or apostolic either.
Constantine gave every indication that he needed to be convinced, and never quite made a choice between the Catholic faith and the Arminian heresy. He was baptized by an Arminian bishop at the end of his life.
You're conflating two things here. "WE are the church not them," which was claimed by both camps and needed deciding between, and "The Church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic," which the two sides did not differ on. They only differed on which one of them was the rightful claimant to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
At any rate, a wise professor of Scripture here at Boston College pointed out that Christians are not, as claimed by the Koran, a people of the book. We are the people of a person- Jesus Christ, and the Bible is regarded as the central source of information about that person.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
At any rate, a wise professor of Scripture here at Boston College pointed out that Christians are not, as claimed by the Koran, a people of the book. We are the people of a person- Jesus Christ, and the Bible is regarded as the central source of information about that person.
No argument. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
(As an aside: Your point that nobody was arguing the biblical canon in the 4th century is a good one to remember when talking about the Protestants tossing out the deuterocanonicals in the 16th.)
And that's why the Orthodoxen all have the same canon, as does the RCC. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
(As an aside: Your point that nobody was arguing the biblical canon in the 4th century is a good one to remember when talking about the Protestants tossing out the deuterocanonicals in the 16th.)
And that's why the Orthodoxen all have the same canon, as does the RCC.
--Tom Clune
Apples and oranges. Minor onesy-twosy discrepancies at the borders versus intentional jettisoning of a largish chunk. And that nobody was arguing about the former potentially indicates it rather didn't much matter. But nobody was arguing about Tobit or Maaccaabbees (I can never spell that) or the execrable Ecclesiasticus.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
At any rate, a wise professor of Scripture here at Boston College pointed out that Christians are not, as claimed by the Koran, a people of the book. We are the people of a person- Jesus Christ, and the Bible is regarded as the central source of information about that person.
No argument.
That is a wise assertion against bibliolatry.
Whilst the creeds and scripture compliment each other, it used to be said in catholic circles: 'it is for the Church to teach, and scripture to confirm'.
It is interesting to reflect that for some time there was no written NT canon, and scripture was primarily the Hebrew bible; the notion of what was canonical sometimes varied from community to community in perfectly orthodox Christian groups. The primitive kerygma was the preaching of the resurrection. This is all that seemed necessary to the primitive church, coupled with the changed lives of the believers; one might add the experience of the Risen Christ in the sacraments, life of the church, and lives of individual believers.
Similarly the image that early Christians individually pored over the bible is stretching the truth; one imagines that many believers couldn't read. This is probably also true of 16thC England. That they searched the scriptures in the synagogoes is more likely - and it would have been the rabbinically educated (like St Paul).
Professor Raymond Brown in discussing the tradition v scripture argument, saw scripture as part of the church's tradition, therefore eliminating the dicotomy.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Professor Raymond Brown in discussing the tradition v scripture argument, saw scripture as part of the church's tradition, therefore eliminating the dicotomy.
This is the historic position of the Orthodox Church.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
At any rate, a wise professor of Scripture here at Boston College pointed out that Christians are not, as claimed by the Koran, a people of the book. We are the people of a person- Jesus Christ, and the Bible is regarded as the central source of information about that person.
I'd be a bit careful about that.
In Christian terms, we're not a 'People of the Book' (though some denominations don't seem to mind that appellation); but to take the Arabic phrase "Ahl al-Kitaab" and say it doesn't apply to you because its literal translation is 'People of the Book', is to misunderstand both the nature of Arabic as a language, and specifically the way in which the phrase is used in the Qu'ran as a term of respect.
Not that I know a lot of Arabic, but I know enough not to base anything on simple translation without further enquiry; and I don't mind Muslims calling by a term which is one of respect for my religion, even if they don't fully understand that religion.
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
I'd be a bit careful about that. In Christian terms, we're not a 'People of the Book' (though some denominations don't seem to mind that appellation); but..
So, because it is intended with respect, I can't disagree with it on Christian terms?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I've commented to Muslims in the past that while they think in terms of Allah giving a book each to Jews, Christians and Muslims, the New Testament has more in common with the Hadith than the Qu'ran, as I understand it.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
beachcomber
Shipmate
# 17294
|
Posted
The Church is the ark of salvation and all else follows from this.
(x posted)
[ 04. September 2012, 18:48: Message edited by: beachcomber ]
--------------------
Helen-Eva:'This is all really interesting and intensely confusing stuff and I am now bewildered in a much more informed way than I was before.'
Posts: 144 | From: bagdad cafe | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Constantine gave every indication that he needed to be convinced, and never quite made a choice between the Catholic faith and the Arminian heresy. He was baptized by an Arminian bishop at the end of his life.
I think you mean Arian heresy. Being baptised by an Arminian bishop would have been quite an achievement.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
I think you mean Arian heresy. Being baptised by an Arminian bishop would have been quite an achievement.
I think you are right. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
I'd be a bit careful about that. In Christian terms, we're not a 'People of the Book' (though some denominations don't seem to mind that appellation); but..
So, because it is intended with respect, I can't disagree with it on Christian terms?
You can disagree with it on Christian terms, if you wish; but be clear that you are disagreeing with a translation which probably doesn't mean what you suppose it does, and that in doing so you may be upsetting someone who is offering you nothing but respect.
If someone French calls you a cabbage, do you disagree on English terms? Or do you look a little further and understand that the word 'chou' can mean something other than a green vegetable?
And French is far more closely related to English than is Arabic.
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
but be clear that you are disagreeing with a translation which probably doesn't mean what you suppose it does, and that in doing so you may be upsetting someone who is offering you nothing but respect.
This seems to be dredging for complexity to me. You don't know what people of the book actually means to an Arabic speaker, but you assume that the translation is misleading, and you don't have any reason to think that Zach disagreeing with that is particularly upsetting to anyone, but you raise the possibility that he might be.
And if Zach was really only using that phrase as a point of departure for his statement of what Christians aren't (which I think he was), then the whole exercise seems to be a paranoia without a cause.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
You can disagree with it on Christian terms, if you wish; but be clear that you are disagreeing with a translation which probably doesn't mean what you suppose it does...
You yourself said you don't actually know that it means anything different from what I've supposed.
Since it was just an example, and the thing about Jesus was the point, consider the matter conceded to you. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I don't really understand why the creedal document produced at Nicaea in 325 is considered so authoritative and yet other decisions at that council are totally ignored - for example, they apparently decided on a Canon that prohibited kneeling on a Sunday.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I don't really understand why the creedal document produced at Nicaea in 325 is considered so authoritative and yet other decisions at that council are totally ignored - for example, they apparently decided on a Canon that prohibited kneeling on a Sunday.
This is actually practiced, if imperfectly, in the Slavic Orthodox churches.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is actually practiced, if imperfectly, in the Slavic Orthodox churches.
OK, let me rephrase: this is not practiced by 99% of the churches that hold the Nicene Creeds as authoritative.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I don't know about "99%," but some pronouncements of the Church are more binding than others. Not every vote of a council has to be believed and practiced de fide.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I don't really understand why the creedal document produced at Nicaea in 325 is considered so authoritative and yet other decisions at that council are totally ignored - for example, they apparently decided on a Canon that prohibited kneeling on a Sunday.
Haven't I read you arguing elsewhere that it is very straightforward to discern what parts of Jesus' saying are trustworthy moral teachings and what parts are the impositions of others and not to be trusted?
If that is easy, surely it is trivial to extend the approach to a councils rulings?
[ 04. September 2012, 19:30: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Haven't I read you arguing elsewhere that it is very straightforward to discern what parts of Jesus' saying are trustworthy moral teachings and what parts are the impositions of others and not to be trusted?
If that is easy, surely it is trivial to extend the approach to a councils rulings?
Not exactly, I've argued that it is a reasonable and logical position to take Jesus as a moral teacher accepting some bits of the New Testament and rejecting others.
I reject the council in its entirety, I have no problem with the concept of accepting bits of it. But I just find it an odd argument from people that elsewhere insist that other things the council did were unarguably authoritative.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I don't think many regard the council as infallible in every utterance. I regard the creed as true, but don't regard the council to be infallible.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't think many regard the council as infallible in every utterance. I regard the creed as true, but don't regard the council to be infallible.
I'm not sure that anyone does. That's a strawman argument right there.
[ 04. September 2012, 19:39: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
OK, let me set up a church which rejects the Nicene Creed and see how far it gets me in the local churches together group.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
"Infallible" is a rather modern word dragged into Christianity as a reaction to higher criticism. The EO churches accept the "Seven Ecumenical Councils" (in which Nicea and Constantinople, the two that defined the creed, are included) as part of big-T Tradition, and they are (nominally) accepted as binding. How this plays out on the steppes is another question.
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
OK, let me set up a church which rejects the Nicene Creed and see how far it gets me in the local churches together group.
What is this in response to? Nobody is saying or even implying that rejecting the Creed is going to endear you to any local ecumenical bodies.
[ 04. September 2012, 19:45: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
OK, let me set up a church which rejects the Nicene Creed and see how far it gets me in the local churches together group.
You're making fallacious arguments in every direction here. Just because the Creed is infallible does not mean every decree of the Council is infallible. Just because the Council was fallible doesn't mean that the Creed is fallible.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
But why do "we" believe it to be infallible?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
OK, let me set up a church which rejects the Nicene Creed and see how far it gets me in the local churches together group.
You're making fallacious arguments in every direction here. Just because the Creed is infallible does not mean every decree of the Council is infallible. Just because the Council was fallible doesn't mean that the Creed is fallible.
I suppose I oughtta correct this statement. Not every decree by the Council was a binding article of faith- as MT said, infallibility vs fallibility is sumfin' else altogether.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Just because the Creed is infallible does not mean every decree of the Council is infallible. Just because the Council was fallible doesn't mean that the Creed is fallible.
Why? If one part of it is mad or bad, why isn't the creed also considered mad or bad?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I regard the creed as true not simply because the council spoke it, but because it is a serious theological statement which accords with so much else in the teachings of the church and in the bible.
Whether one kneels or not seems like a rather minor detail to me.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I regard the creed as true not simply because the council spoke it, but because it is a serious theological statement which accords with so much else in the teachings of the church and in the bible.
Whether one kneels or not seems like a rather minor detail to me.
This seems to me to be exactly what I was saying in the other thread about believing Jesus was a great moral teacher. But anyway, never mind.
[ 04. September 2012, 19:55: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Just because the Creed is infallible does not mean every decree of the Council is infallible. Just because the Council was fallible doesn't mean that the Creed is fallible.
Why? If one part of it is mad or bad, why isn't the creed also considered mad or bad?
The Creed is explicitly a statement of the faith of the Church. The thing about kneeling was simply an agreement to maintain consistent rites across the Church.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
but be clear that you are disagreeing with a translation which probably doesn't mean what you suppose it does, and that in doing so you may be upsetting someone who is offering you nothing but respect.
This seems to be dredging for complexity to me. You don't know what people of the book actually means to an Arabic speaker
Actually, I entered into this point precisely because I do have a fair idea of what that particular Arabic phrase means. I don't know where you got the idea I didn't.
I don't have a lot of Arabic, as I said, but I have learnt some - and the people from whom I learned it were very capable of explaining their culture and how their language worked, as well as how to speak and write some of it. We had quite a discussion after one evening class about phrases with particular meaning in Islam, of which this was one.
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
If one part of it is mad or bad, why isn't the creed also considered mad or bad?
It isn't mad or bad, it's just not that important to me whether a council thought I should kneel or not. It seems a rather disputable and unimportant matter to me.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
Actually, I entered into this point precisely because I do have a fair idea of what that particular Arabic phrase means. I don't know where you got the idea I didn't.
a) because you didn't enlighten us with your knowledge of what it actually does mean and b) because you said "Not that I know a lot of Arabic".
I'm not sure why someone would interject to say "you're wrong about x" in many words without bothering to tell us what the answer actually is.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
Actually, I entered into this point precisely because I do have a fair idea of what that particular Arabic phrase means. I don't know where you got the idea I didn't.
FWIW, I got the same idea from your post. On rereading it given your denial, I can see that I misconstrued your intent. But it was quite easy to do, given the wording.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
Fascinating question! I don't know enough about the history involved, so all I can do is focus on the question itself.
It's always interesting to me to read various Protestant (especially Evangelical) "statements of faith," because the points where they go beyond the creed tell you a lot about what's most important to that group's identity (as they distinguish themselves from other Christian churches). Some, for example, get really precise about how they interpret the Cross; others lay emphasis on gifts of the Spirit, etc. Many of them will add something about the Bible, usually a belief in its inerrancy. But usually they're worded in ways that pin down beliefs with much more precision than the Nicene Creed seems willing to do.
But it's true, many of these statements of faith specifically list a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture as part of the group identity. The Nicene Creed doesn't do that.
I think when we're asked to define ourselves - what we believe - as a group, we will naturally focus on what distinguishes us from others who are otherwise similar to us. Hence the modern statements of faith mentioning the inerrancy of Scripture; they're trying to distinguish themselves from other Christians who don't hold that tenet (and who probably wouldn't think to mention what they believe about the Bible in their own statement of faith).
So - what was the range of acceptable beliefs about the Bible within orthodoxy at the time? Was any belief about the Bible something that would distinguish orthodox Christians from heretics around at the time while not excluding any orthodox Christians?
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
