Let me clarify creeds, and what they are. If Christianity is the true religion (big IF, I know) then there will be A) clearly indentifiable, consistent teachings, and B) clear irrefutable evidence of those beliefs in practice. Core teachings are those that survive, and transcend the various disagreements between those who claim Christianity as their faith. The Reformation (whether viewed in a positive or negative light) shows how this works. If you are a member of a Bible church in the backwoods of Kentucky, your Scriptural exegesis will never go beyond, or violate, the basic creedal confessions of the early church. Because they represent the battle for the most crucial aspects of Christianity. (Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, Chalcedon) You can't be on the wrong side of these, and still be a Christian. Even among those who reject creeds, the core doctrines are safely within those bounds. The reason is that the Protestant impulse is to reaffirm the core doctrines with Scripture itself. At best, you end up back where you started. When challenged, faithful teaching and preaching showed itself in the clarity of those confessions. All minor conflicts give way, because it's black and white, bare bones Christianity. That is not to say that we defer to creeds. Rather, that faithful exegesis leads to a clear confessional history that can be observed. I'm not even sure I understand what I just said.
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con
Comments