Paradősis
September 20th, 2002, 02:58 AM
Since I am not allowed for some reason to respond directly concerning the TOL statement of faith, I'm going to post my respond to it here:
It's an interesting thing.... but I disagree with just about every point--to one degree or another--that you added to the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed that you based this statement of faith around. Anyway, some comments...
There is one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. There is one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us and for our salvation He came down from heaven: by the Holy Spirit He became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered death and was buried. On the third day He rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory.
Up to this point you loosely followed the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which I would certainly commend. Some of the words are a bit unfamiliar to me; E.g., "Being" as the translation of "homoousion," where I much prefer the rendering "essence," but I generally agree with everything said up to this point.
With His saints He will judge the living and the dead. And His kingdom will have no end.
This is the first departure from the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and while the addition is based on Scripture, I tend to disagree with the its inclusion. There are many clarifications that could be made to the Creed. Some additions/clarifications had a chance of getting in, but didn't (E.g., Mary as Theotokos). Some additions/clarifications did slip in (E.g., Filioque). Generally, though, I agree with the early Church's consensus that you don't add/clarify the creed willy nilly--even if your addition is biblically correct, and indeed even if your addition is designed to fight heresy or false belief.
With that in mind, I can't affirm the addition of the words "With His saints" that you have here. I disagree with it's addition for a second reason though, in addition to the one just mentioned. I very much think it correct for the judgment to be thought of as coming from Christ alone. Even if it can be demonstrated that we judge "even the angels," the emphasis of judgment should always be God's. The ancient liturgies include language such as "grant us a good defense before the awesome judgment seat of Christ". Vengeance is the Lord's, and it is said that there is but one Judge. We may be appointed the right to judge, but I think we should not take away from the fact that God himself is the source of this.
There is one Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father. With the Father and the Son He is worshipped.
I wonder if the absence here of the filioque is intentional or not? Both positions (pro and con) seem to have biblical support, so long as inclusion of the filioque is based on the position that John speaks of the Holy Spirit coming "through" Christ as part of God's economy only (and not "through" Him eternally). I would guess then, considering that other additions to the creed were not avoided, that exclusion of the filioque would have been based on the historical/patristic testimony. Is that correct?
He has spoken through the prophets and through the Scriptures. God established the Body of Christ into which the Holy Spirit baptizes every new believer.
Now we're starting to get into more important differences of doctrine. The most important difference is the total exclusion of the words "[I believe]... in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church". This is replaced by the language about God establishing the body of Christ. This change is totally uncalled for (though perhaps consistent as there can be no legit claim to being apostolic, catholic, and one), and cannot be affirmed. The second most important difference in the above is the changing of "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins" to what was instad stated. While stated in a way that is theological correct in language, if the content behind that language (E.g., not by water) is explored, however, the whole statement falls apart and cannot be salvaged.
God offers salvation by grace through faith alone in the resurrected Christ.
Martin Luther said that we are saved by faith alone, but it is the type of faith that is never found to be alone. If this is what you mean by "faith alone" here, I can at the very least respectfully disagree with you. (Though I'd still vehemently disagree with inclusion of such a phrase, especially since it's loaded with lots of additional content). I hope that's what you mean to say here, what the Luther's and the John Wesley's thought, and not a position that intertwines OSAS and "faith alone".
The Bible records the true history of man including that God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them in six literal days; only eight people survived a global flood; through great wonders God delivered Israel from Egypt; the prophets, Christ, and the apostles performed many miraculous deeds.
I can affirm all of this except for the part about "six literal days". These days I tend to sway towards the literal 6 day creation side, but I don't think it's a dogma, and I don't think it can be stated--in an official creed especially--that this is something that "the Bible records". I also wonder if you, like Enyart (cf The Plot), believe that miracles stopped with the apostles, and that was a reason for including the last line quoted above.
The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, in their original state, are the inspired Word of God. God legislated morality out of love for His creation. Men who reject God will suffer eternal damnation.
We'd probably have disagreements about all three statements were we to discuss them, but I at the very least agree with the language. Strange how you can agree totally in language but still differ so greatly in what you mean by that language, isn't it? :)
Christ commands His followers to rebuke and to judge with righteous judgment and to forgive those who repent.
I disagree totally. Christ warned his followers that it was dangerous to judge, and that we should forgive all, regardless of whether they repent or not. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is not just a modern cliche, it has been said since at least the 4th century: and I affirm it.
One day God will resurrect the dead, punish the unbelievers, and reward those whom He has justified with the life of the world to come.
I don't disagree in theological content here, but I do disagree in it's inclusion in a creed, and the tone set by the last 2 paragraphs as a whole.
It's an interesting thing.... but I disagree with just about every point--to one degree or another--that you added to the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed that you based this statement of faith around. Anyway, some comments...
There is one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. There is one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us and for our salvation He came down from heaven: by the Holy Spirit He became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered death and was buried. On the third day He rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory.
Up to this point you loosely followed the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which I would certainly commend. Some of the words are a bit unfamiliar to me; E.g., "Being" as the translation of "homoousion," where I much prefer the rendering "essence," but I generally agree with everything said up to this point.
With His saints He will judge the living and the dead. And His kingdom will have no end.
This is the first departure from the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and while the addition is based on Scripture, I tend to disagree with the its inclusion. There are many clarifications that could be made to the Creed. Some additions/clarifications had a chance of getting in, but didn't (E.g., Mary as Theotokos). Some additions/clarifications did slip in (E.g., Filioque). Generally, though, I agree with the early Church's consensus that you don't add/clarify the creed willy nilly--even if your addition is biblically correct, and indeed even if your addition is designed to fight heresy or false belief.
With that in mind, I can't affirm the addition of the words "With His saints" that you have here. I disagree with it's addition for a second reason though, in addition to the one just mentioned. I very much think it correct for the judgment to be thought of as coming from Christ alone. Even if it can be demonstrated that we judge "even the angels," the emphasis of judgment should always be God's. The ancient liturgies include language such as "grant us a good defense before the awesome judgment seat of Christ". Vengeance is the Lord's, and it is said that there is but one Judge. We may be appointed the right to judge, but I think we should not take away from the fact that God himself is the source of this.
There is one Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father. With the Father and the Son He is worshipped.
I wonder if the absence here of the filioque is intentional or not? Both positions (pro and con) seem to have biblical support, so long as inclusion of the filioque is based on the position that John speaks of the Holy Spirit coming "through" Christ as part of God's economy only (and not "through" Him eternally). I would guess then, considering that other additions to the creed were not avoided, that exclusion of the filioque would have been based on the historical/patristic testimony. Is that correct?
He has spoken through the prophets and through the Scriptures. God established the Body of Christ into which the Holy Spirit baptizes every new believer.
Now we're starting to get into more important differences of doctrine. The most important difference is the total exclusion of the words "[I believe]... in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church". This is replaced by the language about God establishing the body of Christ. This change is totally uncalled for (though perhaps consistent as there can be no legit claim to being apostolic, catholic, and one), and cannot be affirmed. The second most important difference in the above is the changing of "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins" to what was instad stated. While stated in a way that is theological correct in language, if the content behind that language (E.g., not by water) is explored, however, the whole statement falls apart and cannot be salvaged.
God offers salvation by grace through faith alone in the resurrected Christ.
Martin Luther said that we are saved by faith alone, but it is the type of faith that is never found to be alone. If this is what you mean by "faith alone" here, I can at the very least respectfully disagree with you. (Though I'd still vehemently disagree with inclusion of such a phrase, especially since it's loaded with lots of additional content). I hope that's what you mean to say here, what the Luther's and the John Wesley's thought, and not a position that intertwines OSAS and "faith alone".
The Bible records the true history of man including that God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them in six literal days; only eight people survived a global flood; through great wonders God delivered Israel from Egypt; the prophets, Christ, and the apostles performed many miraculous deeds.
I can affirm all of this except for the part about "six literal days". These days I tend to sway towards the literal 6 day creation side, but I don't think it's a dogma, and I don't think it can be stated--in an official creed especially--that this is something that "the Bible records". I also wonder if you, like Enyart (cf The Plot), believe that miracles stopped with the apostles, and that was a reason for including the last line quoted above.
The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, in their original state, are the inspired Word of God. God legislated morality out of love for His creation. Men who reject God will suffer eternal damnation.
We'd probably have disagreements about all three statements were we to discuss them, but I at the very least agree with the language. Strange how you can agree totally in language but still differ so greatly in what you mean by that language, isn't it? :)
Christ commands His followers to rebuke and to judge with righteous judgment and to forgive those who repent.
I disagree totally. Christ warned his followers that it was dangerous to judge, and that we should forgive all, regardless of whether they repent or not. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is not just a modern cliche, it has been said since at least the 4th century: and I affirm it.
One day God will resurrect the dead, punish the unbelievers, and reward those whom He has justified with the life of the world to come.
I don't disagree in theological content here, but I do disagree in it's inclusion in a creed, and the tone set by the last 2 paragraphs as a whole.