Creeds offer us a succinct statement of faith. They help us to understand who we are and what we stand for, and they set a standard to help us create boundaries. Creeds help us to...
- shape our beliefs,
- affirm our faith,
- define the church,
- worship appropriately, and
- mitigate heresy.
One of the best known creeds, the Apostles Creed, has stood for centuries as a definition of the Christian church. Other creeds, like the Nicene Creed, were designed to define the divinity of Christ.
Creeds are powerful and succinct. When many people could not read, creeds were a memorable way to summarize their belief system. Today, creeds can act for us as a series of hooks from which we build our theologies. They leave just enough open to celebrate the multiple dimensions of the church while clarifying just enough to ensure that we avoid heresy.
But creeds are far from perfect. They're not inspired (in the same way that Scripture is) and while they may focus on one topic (like the divinity of Christ) other topics get pushed aside. There's little mention of the character of God the Father or the work of the Holy Spirit in the Apostles Creed. And they are old. I like the terms "from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead" and "... the Holy Catholic church" but those terms aren't recognized anymore for what they were meant to portray.
So for this topic, we're not going to discuss a topic; instead...
let's create a new creed... a creed for the 21st century.
Over the next three weeks, let's talk about some of the following things...
In week one (March 26 - April 1) we should talk about the content.*
- What do we like about creeds. What needs to change?
- Is there a creed we can build off of or should we start fresh?
- What topics need to be mentioned and what do not?
- What heresies do we need to address today?
- How should it be formatted?
- Is there a succinct way to state the specific beliefs we want to address?
- Now that the creed is all together, are there glaring omissions? Does it makes sense? Should it be rephrased or rearranged?
*The small print: This week-by-week calendar is not a strict rule, just a guideline to give us some structure in an activity that is completely new for each of us. Also, I don't want this to seem rushed. Fear and I might consider extending this post's timeline a bit if we find that we need more time. Fortunately, when it comes to creeds, we can stand on the shoulders of giants. Let's aim to create a creed we can generally agree on and be willing to live by. In fact, we'll post it as "The Holy Crap Creed" when we're done.
94 comments:
Daunting "topic" Trembling. Definitely may need more than a week for each part. We also may need to wake Tuna the sleeping bear from his hibernation in order to hear the latest heresies that need refuting.
Anyway, I'll wade into the first week's questions ...
What do we like about creeds. What needs to change?
Is there a creed we can build off of or should we start fresh?
I do like the Nicene Creed the most, although we might be more familiar with the Apostles Creed.
What topics need to be mentioned and what do not?
Needs to be Triniatarian. We need to remember that Christianity is all about participating in the Son's communion with the Father through the Spirit. Needs to center on the Son but also needs a way better explication of the Spirit than the early creeds had.
What heresies do we need to address today?
-individualism
-fundamentalism
-Spirit-denying escapism (i.e. we hide in our Christian bunkers because the world is evil. we resist everything, not realizing that the SPirit is stirring things up for us to get involved in)
How should it be formatted?
As simple and succinct as possible. And no unecessary stuff like the descent into hell or the rapture.
THose are my intitial thoughts.
admittedly it is a fine line between heresies and hobby-horses. another hobby-horse/heresy i might add: pluralism. a finely crafted phrase on the Spirit might do the pluralism justice. (i.e. Christ as the only way, Spirit providing many ways to Christ. ooh, that sounds controversial doesn't it?)
Thanks for starting us off, Fear. Yes, one week per part is a little aggressive but I thought it might help us (uhh... me) stay on track. I'm more than happy to throw that calendar aside should we find dynamic and healthy conversation... but I wanted some structure just in case we descend into some kind of tangent hell or I get distracted with other responsibilities.
I completely agree with the Trinitarian format. That's a good place to start.
I can see why they said that Christ descended into hell (or, more accurately, to the grave)... because they wanted to defend against the idea that Christ swooned. Though I don't support swooning, I love the word... "swoon". It's fun to say.
As for the rapture, yes... that should be left out. However, I'm inclined to consider some kind of end times statement, such as "we believe in the imminent return of Christ to judge the world and complete the salvation process"... (or perhaps something far better written).
Hey, if anyone wants some resources on creeds, I'd recommend...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creed
This is a really basic site if you haven't done a lot of interacting with creeds. Also, for interest's sake, it has info on Jewish and Islamic creeds as well.
http://www.creeds.net/
This is an ugly site but it has more creeds than I've seen anywhere else.
So when you say "Spirit-denying escapism (i.e. we hide in our Christian bunkers because the world is evil. we resist everything, not realizing that the SPirit is stirring things up for us to get involved in)" maybe our creed should also contain a line or two about the role of the Christian in the world, such as "believers must participate in faithful, selfless action to share the love of Christ in word and deed"... (or, again, perhaps something far better written).
yeah except i'd say we need to honour the fact that it is the church together and not us as individuals who do it, and it is Christ through us by His Spirit.
man, this is getting wordy already. great concepts need to be captured in solitary words. even with double meanings. for instance, i like saying that the church is supposed to SHARE CHRIST because it speaks of communion AND mission.
One thing I have to say is in regard to your title on this topic. I would suggest that the creed should say "We believe", not "I believe". And maybe even take the emphasis off our belief and onto God's grace by saying say "We accept". Maybe I'm taking it too far.
Oh and we need to include the sacraments, no?
It might be helpful to pick a basic creed as a template. Nicene? Apostles? The C&MA statement of faith?
Wow, great conversation already.
I'd say that believers must collectively AND individually perform actions of faithfulness. (And no, I don't say that to get the middle road award.)
I do like "we believe" more than "I believe"; I see where you're going with "we accept" but I have to give that some more thought. And I don't want to open old cans of old worms but wouldn't "we accept" run contrary to open theism? Maybe I'm way off.
Yes on the sacraments.
As far as a basic creed template, we already have one: trinitarian. Much more than that is just the details we're already bantering about, isn't it? I would support building off of (or modifying) the Nicene creed or the Apostles creed but want to hear from others first.
Great comments on "share Christ". Brevity will be of great value... but it's not something I'm overly skilled in.
Does two people discussing back and forth count as a conversation or is it just dialogue? Maybe it takes 3 to make a full blown conversation. So with this post I would hope to bring things to that level.
I like Fear's idea of switching to "We Believe". Just that simple change from "I" to "We" would make our attack on individualism pretty inherent in the creed without having to get wordy by explicitly attacking it. Although it is one's individual choices and action that are the very thing that associates them with a community I think. This might be a tough concept to get succinct enough for a creed.
On the "Spirit-denying escapism", perhaps some line could be included challenging us to engage our world in its fallenness rather than judge it from the sidelines.
How deep do we want to get into the character aspects of the trinity?
Love this topic Trembles. Very ambitious and a great idea.
P.S. I've been swooning for the better part of the last 6 months.
I'll flip-flop on "I accept", mainly just because the Scripture writers chose the word "believe", and I have to think for good reason.
Thanks Unit for giving us a conversation. Thing is, I switch views so often that I represent at least two people so I can always have a conversation any time I want, even with myself. But it does help having other sane people around.
I do think we need to hear from some of the un-swooned though.
Speaking as one yet to swoon, my only suggestion is that the creed rhyme in a simple a-b-b-a format. This also adds to fear's double meaning theme. An "ABBA" creed can be used to express the Son's intimacy with the Father. More serious thoughts will come after my morning coffee break.
Heck, why don't we base the entire creed on ABBA tunes:
"Waterloo" tells of Satan's defeat.
"SOS" represents our need for Christ.
"Take a chance on me" is Christ's call on our lives.
"Knowing me, knowing you" talks about the Father's knowledge of us and our intended response.
"The Winner Takes it All" suggests Christ's final victory.
Not yet sure about "Dancing Queen" but I'm sure I'll think of something soon.
wow. and of course "Money, Money, Money" is about tithes and offerings.
one thing i think that will be important is to add between Jesus birth and death a statement about incarnation. something like "was born of a Virgin, LIVED THE HOLY HUMAN LIFE IN THE FLESH, was crucified, dead and buried". This is hugely lacking in the apostle's creed and may be indirectly responsible (or attached) to the Spirit/flesh dualism so detrimental to a holistic understanding of redemption in Christ.
Good point, Fear. On the other hand, The Creed of Nicea (not to be confused with the Nicean Creed) goes too far the other way... although that's what it was designed to do and was appropriate for the time.
I'd love to hear something from Tony Tanti, TheHansen, and Action Jackson. I don't mind waiting a little on the next step until we do. Underachiever seems to have had an incredibly long coffee break, too!
To summarize so far, our creed will look something like this:
We believe in God the Father...
We believe in Jesus Christ, his only son...
* was born of a Virgin
* lived the holy human life in the flesh
* was crucified, dead and buried;
* his death paid the price for sin for those who receive it
* he arose and ascended to heaven
* he will return to separate believers from non-believers, condemning non-believers to eternal punishment and completing the salvation of believers.
We believe in the Holy Spirit
* who inspired the Holy Scriptures and illuminates its modern reading
* who saves and sanctifies believers
* who equips believers to act in faithfulness as a community
This is just some of the notes I have that have been inspired by some of the conversation already.
In a few days, once we've heard from our delinquent members, let's start plugging in their ideas then pull together these above thoughts into something far more coherent.
Great conversation, sorry for my delinquence, I've been reading and not posting.
In the Holy Spirit section could we include a brief description of the Spirits role in relation to believers and non-believers. (The Spirit who counsels the believer and convicts the non-believer.)
Counsels isn't the right word there but you get what I mean.
Do all creeds mention Mary being a Virgin? I believe she was but is it really a fact worthy of a creed, let alone the first line of a creed?
If this creed is to be modern might we modernize the language in it? Mostly you've done this but I find the wording "he arose and ascended" to be a little too NIV. I can't think of a better way to say it that isn't brief though. (Christ rose from the dead, was seen by hundreds of his followers and rose to heaven where he is to this day.) - see, too wordy. I like the idea of including the fact that he appeared to his followers, this is a creed-worthy fact to me.
Interesting point about being a creedworthy fact. The mention of Mary's virginity, I'm sure, had something to do with defending against those who said that Jesus was just a man. Perhaps we can claim Christ's divinity in another way.
What makes something more or less creedworthy. Until you mentioned it, I would not have thought that Jesus' post resurrection appearance was creedworthy because we already believe the arose... but by that same definition, Mary's virginity is out.
Maybe while we're talking about what should stay or go, we should talk about specific issues in the world we need to address with this creed.
I think you nailed just why those issues came to my mind trembling. Creeds have always been about establishing beliefs in the context of the culture they were written to. I guess adding the fact that Jesus appeared to his followers gives weight to a claim most skeptics today wouldn`t believe without some proof.
The world today is ready to be spiritual but not be told to believe something blindly.
I think the resurrection appearances are important. I'd be up for including it. after all, this is where the OT was taught in a whole new light by the Light himself to the eventual framers of the NT! That is huge! Emmaus is almost creedworth itself!
I don't know if Mary is creedworthy, per se, but I wonder if the virgin birth is the most pithy way of referring to Jesus' deity from the get go and capturing the gift-ness of the incarnation.
I think the Spirit's role in the lives of believers and unbelievers is important. I think it amazing that before the Easter event gets going, in John 14, Jesus "goes off" about the Holy Spirit and says to these he is about to leave that the HS will guide them into all truth.
Then in Acts you have the HS birthing the church, sending Philip to the Ethiopian, guiding Paul's missions journeys, and so on. You also have the Spirit at work opening things up to the Gentiles (Cornelius is a God-fearing man with a household just ready to hear the gospel and the HS gets Peter to go give it to him). I think the Spirit is active in the world getting people ready to hear the gospel (and those with faith are given more). This activity goes hand in hand with the HS's activity in motivating the church to go reach those people. In either case the Spirit can be grieved, but the SPirit's work is our number one interaction with God in this "age".
Clark Pinnock said it is just as right to think of Christ as an extension of the Spirit's ministry as it is to think of the Spirit as an extension of Christs.
I like how you are driving us a long here Trembles. I am half expecting some contention from CSU and tanti, at least, on our eternal punishment phrase there. THat could use some nuancing.
I too am willing to wait on hansens and tunage though. underacheiver must have a massive extra large from Timmies on the go there. By the way everyone I am 1 for 8 on roll up the rim. Last year I went 5 for 9 or something ridiculous like that. (which I attribute to the fact that I spent most of the RUTR season on lent, fasting from coffee, which God of course rewarded me for. this year I have no such fast going on) once again, I digress.
Great points on the creedworthiness of the post-resurrection appearances. You've really changed my thinking on that matter. Thanks!
Yes, Fear, was typing the "eternal punishment" line I was thinking back to a previous post... which is actually why I backspaced "damnation" and replaced it with "punishment". The wording will come.
Thanks for the Cornelious passage. I had forgotten about that passage which will fit really well into the theology class I'm teaching tonight.
As for Mary's virginity, I'm happy to skip that part but what if we included something like "fully god and fully human" or something like that from the Nicene creed. To me, that addresses the same issue that Mary's virginity addressed AND it speaks more clearly into today's culture against Jesus just being a charismatic magician or something.
It seems like we're naturally trending towards the person and work of Christ and the HS but what about the Father? As I hammer out some of the creed issues in my mind, I find it much harder to establish distinct roles that the Father takes.
And what issues do we need to address today? I'm thinking our creed needs to speak against:
* individualism
* fundamentalism
* (from Fear) Spirit-denying escapism
* there are many paths to God
* Christ was just a charismatic man
* I'm going to heaven because I'm a good person
Your point about the Father is a good one. A friend of mine here at seminary has a beef to grind (is that a legit metaphor?) with theology for not caring much for the Father. He is basically God as far as we're concerned.
How's this? The whole point of Christianity is to become one of the Father's children, to participate in the Son's communion with the Father by the Spirit. What does that say about the Father? Creator? Sovereign? Giver? Source? What needs to be said about Him that can't be said about the Son and Spirit as well? Its a toughy. The Father begets. Whatever that means. The Father holds it together in heaven while the Son is facing hell. How do you say all this without just making your first part of the creed about God and then talking Son and Spirit without every really saying much about the Father. Maybe that's the way it is.
Wow. Great thoughts. The Father's only work, I guess, is to receive our worship. Apart of the son and spirit does he do anything else? (And yes, I'm up on my trinitarian theology... I mean "apart from the son" in the same way that Christ had an apartness from the father on earth and the spirit has an apartness now).
Whoa. Did I think we could do this in 3 weeks? I must have been crazy.
One creed-like thing I love is the first question in the Westminster catechism: "What is the chief end of man?"... "To glorify God and enjoy him forever".
I really think "being glorified" IS the Father's role. And the Son and Spirit enable that to happen through their work.
Just some of my thoughts about the Father, for what it's worth.
So maybe an amalgam of the Father content we've talked about so far could be...
"We believe in God the Father: omnipotent, eternal, and uncreated creator; the object of our worship."
Again, the wording needs work but we're just roughing it in right now.
As for pithiness and brevity, I think it's okay at this point to get wordy if we have to and later to trim and snip.
So if you have a recommendation to include, speak up!
you are doing a great job of pulling this all into phrases.
i have questions about that largely unbiblical statement: "the chief end of man is to glorify GOd and enjoy Him forever"
I wonder if the chief end of people is actually to love God to His glory.
I also wonder if the Father is the object of our worship. End of our worship maybe. But object?
I love that line "uncreated Creator". Nice work.
I think the Father does more than recieve our worship. He is the Sending God, no? That's something.
good stuff
Thanks for the comments, Fear.
Yes the Westminster confession is not quoted from the Bible but I love that it captures an idea really well. I think it's an excellent example of a well-written creedal statement: accessible and understandable by the masses; it's terse but weighty; it gets its powerful point across in just a few simple words.
As for your reworking of the confession, I'll have to think about it. Yes people vs. man... that's a no-brainer. glorify God vs. to His glory... same thing. It really boils down to love vs. enjoy. I do like your restatement of love because it demonstrates a one-sided adoration directed appropriately toward God whereas enjoy (to me, at least) suggests that God's "amazingness" is something we take in and our emotional response is the end goal. On the other hand, enjoying God can also suggest that God's love is so great that we have no choice but to drink it in as we worship, which will be supremely enjoyable. Well, those are my thoughts on it right now. Good discussion.
I debated about using the word "object" and we don't have to use it in the creed but it's a valid word because it doesn't depersonify God. "Object" is commonly used to describe when people are the source and target of an emotion... (i.e., we can be objects of God's wrath, for example). I'm struggling with "end of our worship" but I know what you're saying. God is both the reason we're worshiping him AND he is the recipient of the worship and I think it's important to get both ideas in there. When you say "sending" God, what do you mean? Sending the son? Sending the source of life? Sending his presence and holiness, which we worship?
Thanks for the uncreated Creator comment. I unabashedly admit I like it too.
Oh wow, this topic is FANTASTIC! Amazing work folks. Sorry I haven't contributed. I have been away training for some new work I'm going to be doing and haven't had a chance to check in at all. I've read most of the comments, and noted the fact that my input is being waited upon... So, I thought I would at least chime in and encourage you to move forward without me. I would love to digest this more and offer some thoughts, but to be honest, I just don't know when I'll be able to. Can I still be a member with this kind of shoddy commitment?...
TheHansen: Well, you've cast a grave shadow upon all of us... but we'll try to get by without you. It could put you in line for the Topol Award. We'll move forward but please stay in the loop because we really do want your input. So, the next time you post, we expect each word oozing with wisdom.
Okay, back to creeding. What should we say about the church? This could be an appropriate place to include both the response and responsibility (hey, I like that!) of the community of believers. Should it be included in the section "We believe in Christ" or in the section "We believe in the HOly Spirit"? It seems to potentially fit in both and I would imagine that it was put in the Holy Spirit section in other creeds because the church is currently the work of the spirit and possibly it was put in that section for stylistic reasons (i.e., it could break up the flow too much by sticking it in the Christ section).
I do like "the holy Catholic church" although we could restate it to say "the holy universal church" or something. Actually, in the theology class I was just teaching, we were talking about Hebrews 10:25 and the mystical church (that is, the church that encompasses believers of all time, living and dead). Should we expand universal to mystical? Will that confound more than it affirms?
Another great creed line from the Apostles Creed is "the communion of saints". This is such a great line because it really has so many layers to it and it's the kind of line I hope our creed is filled with. It can refer, of course, to the sacrament or to unity of the body and I take it to also hint at the communion of saints with God.
Nice work fellows. There has been a serious posting spree going on here the last couple days. I just got back from a couple days slaving away in the desert, but I'm eagerly looking forward to plugging in and putting my meager creedal knowledge to bear on this great topic.
As for the eternal punishment line; I don't have much problem with that. I think the word "punishment" is a pretty good descriptor of the idea we are trying to get accross without being to specific as to its nature. I guess the word "eternal" is where the issues might come up. Is there a way to refer to the eternal punishment as a choice one makes. That way it can accomodate the more liberal minded (the punishment is eternal as long as one refuses to choose Christ). What do you think? I seem to remember having my views blown out of the water during that topic though, and rightly so.
I love the old "holy catholic church" line. But it definitely was an impediment for people who didn't take the time to figure out what the line was trying to say.
I like the mystical idea too. We do tend to overlook the members of the Church that aren't with us anymore, that's a lot of tradition to miss out on. Old GKC once said that tradition was the democracy of the dead. It's not withholding a vote from someone for the simple reason that they might not be here on earth anymore. The quote was something along those lines at least (just trying to regain the title here). I'm wondering if we might have the same problems with mystical as we did with catholic though. Universal is pretty self explanatory, but maybe does not really capture what we are missing out on by not using mystical. Perhaps "universal and mystical".
"Communion of saints" is a personal favourite line as well.
Nice work with the summary postings too Trembling. This is probably pretty ambitious for a 3 week topic but I have no problems with extending that deadline. It would be well worth it i think.
Hey, I'm an ambitious guy. We all expect this to go a little longer than 3 weeks, and that's cool. I think we do need some kind of timeline or we'll talk this to death without ever reaching a consensus AND I think that Tuna may be more likely to post if he thinks he'll lose his say on the matter after it's finished. Oh Tuna, why don't you post? Why do you deny us your Tunaness?
After posting "universal" I got down on myself about the potential misunderstanding that people could have... universal also potentially meaning that any church believing in any god is part of the church. Definitely a challenge to find the clearest wording. An impossible task, actually.
I'm fine with rewording "eternal punishment"... does "eternal separation from God" work for all of us? At first glance I think it might.
Good work bringing in GKC. I think that you are a contender for the award and the only way it can be wrested from your grip is if someone actually QUOTES GKC rather than making paraphrasing references. Otherwise, it's in the bag for you, my friend. By the way, CSU, I love that you can say "slaving away in the desert" and actually mean it literally.
Hey Underachiever, did you finish the coffee break you started at 10:42 am on Monday March 27th? That puts you in the running for the Topol award. Perhaps you rolled up the rim and won a lot of money and are now lounging on a beach in the Caribbean.
Hey, I'd love it if someone would weigh on in the discussion Fear and I are having about the nature and work of the Father. Does he send and receive? Beget? Is his role to be loved by us? Are there actions we can attribute specifically to him in a similar way that we attribute specific actions to Christ and the Spirit? Is our response to worship? Love? Enjoy?
Good stuff all. I must be quick as I have to get back to class.
universal is better than catholic or mystical but not ideal. i don't know what is ideal. (helpful eh?)
communion of saints i don't like because saints has lost its meaning and conjurs up images of a works based salvation.
think eternal separation from God is good, but I don't think it will appease CSU (which I'm okay with in this case, but would be willing to hear other ideas!)
my problem with the "glorify God and enjoy him forever" thing is that I'm not sure we were created to glorify God as our chief end. wouldn't entering the love relationship with God be the chief end, and glorifying him in that be an essential aspect of that? and I'm not sure I agree with including "enjoy him forever". I see what it is saying, but I'd rather say the chief end of humanity is to love God to His glory. I am skating on thin ice opposing the Westminster Confession though, I realize.
The Father Sends. And this is huge. If not we have an Angry God and a pleasant Jesus who thankfully keeps him at bay.
I'm out for now. Peace on earth
A tantalizing piece of writing, Fear... you said so much and so little... it was almost a monolith of obscurity, I'd say.
The Father Sends. Great; what does the father send? The Son? I would agree that he was sending the son during the OT ("sending" being in the aorist sense, right?)... but what about BEFORE he created the earth?
Does "saints" conjure up images of works-based salvation? That's a shame. I really like the word "saints" and I've been quite pleased to discover that I could count myself among them. For me, the word "saints" once just meant the old people in my church but lately it has really undergone a lexical transformation for me... and I've come to appreciate a fuller meaning tied more closely to the community made up by the mystical church.
It seems like what Fear and I are debating is whether humanity was created to love God or glorify God. What's interesting is just how different the nuances of these statements are. It's likely my own personal journey (of which, Fear, I've shared with you in great detail) that has me really thinking that we're going to spend eternity prostrated at the throne speechless before the Almighty God. That's why I've really trended towards "glorify". I agree that we were created to love God but (again, influenced by my walk in this past year) I see that love as more like adoring worship of us for God than an interpersonal relationship between us... I'm thinking that it's much more one-sided. But I suppose that this could be an entire post on its own, and I don't want to split hairs, so I'm fine to say that our ultimate purpose is to love God to his glory. Just wanted to say my piece on the matter lest you think I'm a heretic. (Wouldn't be the first time).
Can we go with "global church"? Or what about if we just used a capital C... "Church" instead of "church".
I know that we're already discussing a number of other things but I'm going to throw something else into the mix. (Basically in the vain hope of getting Tuna to post)... There's nothing about the Bible in either the Apostles creed or the Nicene creed. Do we think it's appropriate to say something about it?
Let me say for the record that I have no problems with the line "eternal separation from God", lest you think me wishy washy in my orthodoxy.
Good question about the roles of the Father. Fear and Trembling have been debating this rather well and I haven't really come up with anything to add yet. What do the the other creeds were are sampling say on the matter. I think tonight I'll get on to those website you referenced and read about how some of the other creed authors have treated the topic.
So the chief of end of man...is it a mainly one-sided relationship with God or traffic on both sides of the road? Great question. I've never really thought about it on that level. I'm going to have to do some research and reading here. When we are dealing with our faith though is it necessary to separate how we relate to the different persons on the trinity? Just a question. I realize the different persons of the trinity have different roles when relating to us as humans, but does the same apply to us in reverse?
I like the idea of putting something about scripture in the creed too. I was suprised that it wasn't in the apostle's or nicene creeds. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Cheers to the Tunaness of Tuna. I will never eat a tuna sandwich the same way again.
Great thoughts, CSU... As far as how we relate to the different members of the trinity, my thinking is that the Spirit points us to the Son and the Son points us to the Father. Worshiping the Father honors the entire Godhead while worshiping the son or the spirit does not. (That's not to say that we can't spend our time focused on the son or spirit in worship, but I think that ultimately it goes back to the Father). That's one reason why I've seen the Father's role as just to be worshiped... the roles of the Son and Spirit are both meant to restore us to a place where we can enter the throneroom and worship. Of course, I could be on crack... these are just my thoughts.
Oooooh I've got some BIG deadlines today and tomorrow so I won't be around for a couple days. It would be a real Easter treat if Tuna would post in my absence.
I don't have enough time to respond to every stream of thought in progress here, but it would seem:
1) something about the Bible will be very very important, that might be the main point of contention in the world today
2) I don't know if I'd say the Son and Spirit "point" us to the Father. From reading I've been doing lately I am starting to think of it in terms that "we participate in the Son's union with the Father by the bond of the Spirit" (that might even be a direct quote from Barth or Torrance for all I know)
3) I see the point you are making about being on our faces before the Father in heaven, and I agree that this will always define our relationship: creature to Creator. But I am of the imagination that we will "cast our crowns" before the throne and be on our knees in heaven, perhaps for a few millenia!, but then at some point in infinity the One at the right hand of God the Father Almighty is going to stand up and point to his wounds and say, "hey folks, welcome to heaven, I've done something very important here, as you can see, and so I want you to get up (while remaining eternally bowed in your "hearts") and enjoy what I have for you: Love. Love between us and love between you.
I think Loving God to His glory captures the eternal nature of the creature/Creator relationship while avoiding this sense that we were merely created to make God look good. This doesn't seem like God to me, even though, of course, he was, is and always will be worthy of all glory. In fact I think if we can say anything of the people who will be in heaven it is that they will be the people who know that, and have submitted to it, and have experienced it.
This break went longer than I thought, so another thought or two:
* its nice that you have had a lexical transformation in your view of the word "saints", trembling, but I don't think the word quite communicates it accurately anymore. I mean, if a creed is a declaration, we are hoping it communicates right? But maybe I'm selling too much by wanting to lose the word? I guess it depends if I could find a better one.
Class is on. Good for you CSU for doing actual reading on this stuff. I admit that the reading I do is all spoken for (assigned to me) these days, but ends up feeding into my thoughts on this blog considerably ...
Finally back from my coffee break. It's a long walk from Surrey to the Gourmet Bean.
Lots of great stuff on here. I was also wondering about where to put "the church". It is united with Christ, but the Spirit works through it. I would like to see it as more than a "tag on" that gets rambled off at the end of the creed. I am all for using the capital "C" church in the creed, rather than universal, catholic, or mystical. Something along the lines of "Christ will work his redemptive plan through the Spirit-led Church" could be nice. I would love for that thought to be corrected / refined by my more learned peers.
Fear - I love the comment of the Father being The Source. Trembling - love the line: "We believe in God the Father: omnipotent, eternal, and uncreated creator; the object of our worship." I know you're struggling with the object. Perhaps "the One who deserves all worship" could work? I'm sure a professional writer can improve that. Also, is it fair to inlcude "holy" somewhere in that descriptive list?
What's sad is that I AM a professional writer... and the best I could do was "object". haha
"Holy" is a great addition. How did I miss that?
Welcome back from the coffee break. I shouldn't be writing, I should be working. I'll return in a couple days to write more.
underachiever, next time you are going to the gourmet bean let me know, i'll join you!
I'm like the guy in the office who comes in right at that end of a big project. He does a little work and recieves credit along with the rest of the group.
Great topic Trembling, my lack of posting wasn't due to the topic but my own inadequices.
Good work so far by everyone. I agree with most of the stuff that has been said. Creeds seem to be reactionary and I think from what has been written our creed (see I am already trying to take credit)is also reacting against the hereises of today.
I think the creed is lacking a line about Jesus still being fully God and fully man after the acension. There are some people who think that Jesus left his body on earth and is just Spirit now. Jesus could not be the mediator between man and God unless he is still fully God and fully man.
I agree we need a line about the Bible being the revelation to humanity of who he is and who we are. Our human creeds are based on God's revelation of who he is through the Scriptures. There is much that we don't know but what we do know is because God has revelaed it to us.
Our creed should also make the point that our salvation is past, present, and future event. This would counter the "ticket to heaven" understanding of salvation that has crippled the western church.
I don't know where I stand on the glorify or love debate. Clearing there is an element of both. From how both of you are arguing this it seems to come down to what we will be doing in heaven and the answer is we don't know. Our creed needs to affirm what we know or more to the point who we know.
Maybe once we have a consenus on what we want the creed to say we can work on how to word it succintly.
I hope all of you have a Happy Easter and enjoy your weekend.
I spent last week with Fear and insead of passing on blessings, or wisdom, all he and his family passed on to me is disease, ie a cold.
Tuna, the rumors AREN'T true: you didn't die saving a family of illegal Mexican immigrants from a rampaging tiger. I'm thrilled.
Okay folks, I sense that we're ready to move on to the next phase (although that doesn't end the valuable discussion we've been enjoying).
Here is the creed from the collected efforts so far. If I've missed something, I apologize, please let me know and I'll include it.
I recognize that there is some duplication, some extraneous content, and some holes still to be filled. So review what we've got and make sure that your thoughts are included and we're headed in the right direction. The point here is to still focus on content (like we have been doing) but from a larger picture perspective. My advice is not to sweat the exact wording too much (although if you think if something good, say so!)... instead, let's make sure we're including and excluding the appropriate content.
We believe in God the Father:
* omnipotent
* eternal
* uncreated creator
* holy
* the source of life
* whom the community of faith will love to his glory in eternity
We believe in Jesus Christ, his only son...
* who lived the holy human life as equally God and human
* was crucified, dead and buried;
* his death paid the price for sin for those who accept it
* he arose and was seen by many.
* he ascended to heaven and dwells there now, still equally God and human
* he will return to separate believers from non-believers, condemning non-believers to eternal punishment and completing the salvation of believers.
We believe in the Holy Spirit
* who inspired the Holy Scriptures and illuminates its modern reading to describe who God is, who we are, and the divine plan of salvation for the faithful
* who saves and sanctifies believers
* who counsels the believer and convicts the non-believer
* who equips believers to act in faithfulness as a community
Oh, having just read through, I think we should have something about the son and spirit also being eternal and uncreated.
So...
We believe in God the Father:
* omnipotent
* eternal
* uncreated creator
* holy
* the source of life
* whom the community of faith will love to his glory in eternity
We believe in Jesus Christ, his only son...
* also eternal and uncreated
* who lived the holy human life as equally God and human
* was crucified, dead and buried;
* his death paid the price for sin for those who accept it
* he arose and was seen by many.
* he ascended to heaven and dwells there now, still equally God and human
* he will return to separate believers from non-believers, condemning non-believers to eternal punishment and completing the salvation of believers.
We believe in the Holy Spirit...
* also eternal and uncreated
* who inspired the Holy Scriptures and illuminates its modern reading to describe who God is, who we are, and the divine plan of salvation for the faithful
* who saves and sanctifies believers
* who counsels the believer and convicts the non-believer
* who equips believers to act in faithfulness as a community
tuna! if disease brings you to blog, maybe i'll infect you more often. seems it was a bad idea for us to sit next to each other in class, let alone at the lunch table. sorry.
nice work trembling, on moving us along.
it seems to me a statement on the Bible is going to be paramount. after all, this is all easy enough in a "closed discussion" on a predominantly evangelical blog, but the first thing we'd have to defend if this blog were more public would be where we get off defining God this way in the first place. unless we believe the Bible is what it says it is we lose a lot of what we've been saying don't we?
so what do we believe about the Bible? what does the Bible even say it is?
I'd love it if church and Bible came under Holy SPirit, but it could easily come under Christ too. It would be best if we could have a trinity that perfectly overlapped itself, but perhaps such imperfections of creed will remind us that we are really trying to describe the indescribablly here.
something i'm not sure we could venture without some belief in the Bible as Revelation.
I like trembling how you kept the creed to three parts: father, son and holy spirit. The church and the scriptures should fall within what we say about God and how he relates to humanity. I would probably keep it in the section of the Holy Spirit because it is the Holy Spirit who is given to the church.
Not to gripe to much but I do think it is important to have some kind of statement about salvation being a past, present and future reality. This line to me counters the ticket to heaven crowd that makes up so many people in our churches.
This cold is shutting me down so I will close with saying Happy Easter to all except for Fear.
Thanks for the feedback, guys. I think Fear brings up a good point about saying more about the Bible than we do. What would everyone recommend.
Tuna, I did try to incorporate something about salvation being past, present, and future but it wasn't coming out right. I ended up referring to it in the line about Christ "completing the salvation of believers". I think I know what you're trying to get across, can you (or anyone) give me some suggestions as to wording? Maybe for now I'll just put in a "placeholder" until we move on to the third phase of this project.
I think the Tuna has made up for some of his absence with his latest posts, cheers to him and the extra flair he brought to the sandwich I had for lunch today.
Fear makes a good point about a statement about the bible being paramount. I think the majority of our creed so far is knowledge pulled directly from the Bible, so some sort of justification or statement about its credibility is definitely very important. Especially when you think of how a non-christian or even a non-evangelical might view our text. Perhaps we could rip off that line about "all scripture is God breathed...." since I think the copyright is long since expired.
I think a statement along these lines would fit best under the HS section of the creed. Sure, plenty of the word is straight from the mouth of Christ but all our interaction with scripture in our context is through the HS I would say. He/She is the one that illuminates our understanding of the words of Christ and the other authors. Albeit they were all writing what God wanted them to, so I guess it could really go anywhere within the text of the creed. Perhaps it even merits its very own section.
I'm not sure what exactly is meant by the idea of salvation being past, future, and present. Perhaps the Tuna could illumine my understanding.
Looking good so far I would say
Supercilious
I think Tuna meant that we were saved (at the cross), are being saved (through sanctification), and will be saved (at Christ's return). That's a past - present - future idea from the perspective of individual salvation.
This idea should be fairly easy to include (and, in fact, I thought I had made some of it evident when I used the line "completing the salvation of believers"). We can tweak the wording.
However, it's possible that he meant that the salvation plan began in the past during the Eden eviction, is continuing in the present in our lives, and will be completed at Christ's future return.
As for this idea, we'll need to run it through our resident open theists to ensure it passes their filter.
Tuna: please elaborate!
i'll help tuna out here because, a) i agree with him, b) we were in class together last week and i think i know what he's talking about, and c) i imagine as soon as he is well again we won't hear from him until canada day.
i think trembling, you are pretty close with what you described. salvation is more than intellectual assent, a moment when our all-important religious decision kicks in and its all said and done. salvation is also more than a journey, however. salvation is GOd's work. too often we speak of it as ours. certainly i am not one of these calvinists who thinks that even faith is completely and totally given to us (on the basis of election) but i do like what some of the neo-orthodox theologians (from the calvinist stream) have to say about our over-emphasis on our own faith and experience. God saves. if faith is a human act at all (which I think it is) it is purely an act of submission to, acceptance of, a gift already offered. not only already offered but already effected. just waiting to be accepted. we give in to it, you might say, in faith. faith is not a "work". it is almost a "non-work", a "non-act". (this last part is me, not the neo-orthodox guys, talking)
but here's the illustration. When TF Torrance was asked "when he was saved" he said, "33 AD". He was being a bit feciscious I guess, but the point is pretty well made. When we talked about this in class we weren't throwing out the idea that salvation is also a journey in our lives that has very definite moments to it (and God only knows when and what they are), but we too often make it OUR thing when it is totally an act of God.
And in class I suggested that in the same way if someone asked me "when I was saved" I could answer: "It is not for us to know dates and times, but only the Father knows the day or the hour". This implies not only the un-pin-downable aspect of our "conversion" but also reminds us of the already/not yet and the important reality that salvation is not yet complete and yet is no less real.
make sense?
how we say that in a creed is still a matter for discussion.
Again, not perfect but you'll see (in bold) the parts I've added to reflect request of the Bible and the ongoing salvation plan.
We believe in God the Father:
* omnipotent
* eternal
* uncreated creator
* holy
* the source of life
* whom the community of faith will love to his glory in eternity
We believe in Jesus Christ, his only son...
* also eternal and uncreated
* who lived the holy human life as equally God and human
* was crucified, dead and buried;
* his death paid the price for sin for those who accept it, beginning our salvation.
* he arose and was seen by many.
* he ascended to heaven and dwells there now, still equally God and human
* he will return to separate believers from non-believers, condemning non-believers to eternal punishment and completing the salvation of believers.
We believe in the Holy Spirit...
* also eternal and uncreated
* who inspired the writing of the Holy Scriptures and illuminates its contemporary reading (which describes God's work in the world and which provides sacred guidance for us).
* who saves and sanctifies believers
* who counsels the believer and convicts the non-believer
* who equips believers to act in faithfulness as a community
Alright, looks good. I'll talk to the publishers....
Nice work Dr. Trembles.
But seriously, that's a great framework I think. I like the way you worked the past, present, future aspects of salvation into the different subsections of the creed.
Question... should we include anything about our role as humans in this relationship. I.e. we talk about how God works salvation from his end but we don't really reference what's required from our end. Is this something that should go in a creed, or is that outside the scope of what we're doing here?
Good comments CSU... we tried to capture some of that thought in the line "equips believers to act in faithfulness as a community", but I'm not sure what else to include.
On the one hand, grace is a free gift, but on the other hand it's the costliest thing we could ever have... in that it should inspire us to (1) give up all the things our sinful nature craves (2) act in faithfulness.
Beyond that, I'm not sure. If we include too much we'll lose the sense of grace being free. If we put in too little we'll lose the sense of grace being expensive. I really think we need both in our creed.
Maybe we can include something about a life of faith being marked by Christ-reflecting actions...
or a life of faith being marked by a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, service to others, and involvement in the local church...
or a life of faith being marked by the pursuit of holiness.
We already have something about salvation itself in the Christ section; so we just need to include something about the post-salvation walk... and it makes sense to put that in the Spirit section.
Any thoughts? What makes us saints? (Hint: it's not 3 miracles and a post-humous blessing by the pope).
I'm not sure how to answer your last question Trembling. I have been thinking more about trying to clarify my point about stressing the past, present, and future events of salvation.
There is much debate about what happens when someone who has made a confession of faith turns their back later on in life. Calvinst and Arminians also debate the process of salvation. My point in talking about salvation in this way is to say that salvation is more complex than we make it out to be. Yes there is a single point in time when someone becomes saved but salvation is also a journey. It is almost impossible for us to say with certainty when we were saved and the focus for the believer is to hold to their salvation throughout their life. I'm not trying to take away from assurance of salvation but I think that there is more to it then saying a simple prayer once in your life and turing your back on that prayer afterwards.
So to your saint question; it is more than once saying a simple prayer but I'm sure there's more but not from me tonight.
Is this really Tuna or some impostor? Your posts are erudite and relatively regular... exactly the opposite of what I have come to expect from you. My friend, you are no longer someone who lives in my parent's basement... you are the scholar who lives in my parent's basement.
Well done!
And when I get around to reposting the amendments to the creed I'll try to reflect your thoughts a little more clearly in there. I'm gathering that you're suggesting that salvation is more of a process than an event.
i must say that tuna may have lacked in online presence but he was a force to be reckoned with in class. he had people laughing, crying, cowering in fear, and repenting of their sins. it was amazing.
i had a thought for the creed's beginning. what about a pithy summary statement which also summarizes the essence of the thing, such as:
"We believe in one God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and in one Man in whom humanity finds its way, who is Jesus the Messiah, the very Son of God."
okay that wasn't so pithy.
i might be introducing something here, i'll have to go back and check. Barth calls Jesus the electing God and the elected Man; God to humanity and humanity to God. I love it.
I think our statement on the Bible is good, but might be too simple since this might be the most tenuous position in the world right now. is it enough that it is inspired? (my breakfast this morning in its own way was inspired) what about authority? inerrancy? infallibility? i'm not sure I'd die on a hill for the strictest definition of these last two, but I still believe in them. without them the faith seems to crumble significantly, no? or perhaps i underplay the role of the Spirit and the church.
I was wondering when someone was going to call me out about my use of "inspired" Scripture... and I was wondering exactly what it was that someone would saw was also inspired. Breakfast cereal, eh? I'm surprised it took this long.
What word would you say is a better word than "inspired" to capture our range of positions on authority, inerrancy, and infallibility?
Oh; good call on the pre-creed statement. What did you want it to address that can't be addressed in the creed itself? Am I reading this right: more of a focus on the relationship between the Godhead and between God and humanity?
This looks great so far.
I'd still prefer the 'eternal seperation from God' to 'eternal punishment' but I suppose seperation is a punishment so maybe that's too picky.
'Inspired' is a bit of an ambiguous word. Is 'influenced' or 'governed' better? This is a tough one because there is not even consensus among scholars as to what innerant means let alone whether scripture is just that.
Okay, made some additions and changes. Consolidated a little. Consulted Roget's for an alternative to "inspire".
Not sure that I'm excited about the "one Man" part of the pre-creedal statement. Might need Fear to talk about that a bit more so I understand more clearly what he wants to say about it. It may just need to be reworded slightly since I think it suggests a fourth member of the trinity, a human being.
Added "infallible" to the Bible section but not inerrant; I think infallible has a broader definition that establishes our position but gives room for slightly differing views.
We believe in one God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and in one Man in whom humanity finds its way, who is Jesus the Messiah, the very Son of God.
We believe in God the Father:
* omnipotent
* eternal
* uncreated creator
* holy
* the source of life
* whom the community of faith will love to his glory in eternity
We believe in Jesus Christ, his only son...
* also eternal and uncreated
* who lived a holy life as equally God and human
* was crucified, dead and buried;
* he arose and was seen by many.
* his death and resurrection initiated salvation by paying the price of sin for those who accept it.
* he ascended to heaven and dwells there now, still equally God and human
* he will return to divide believers from non-believers, condemning non-believers to eternal separation from God and completing the salvation of believers.
We believe in the Holy Spirit...
* also eternal and uncreated
* who induced the writing of the infallible Holy Scriptures and illuminates its contemporary reading (which provides sacred guidance for us).
* who convicts humankind
* who saves and sanctifies believers and equips them to pursue holiness and act in faithfulness as a community.
how about instead of infallible, authoritative and trustworthy?
Maybe it is good to say the Holy Spirit guides into all truth (John 14), and how about the Holy Spirit illuminates its contemporary reading for the church (we really need some sense of how our interpretations are not authoritative and must be brought into dialogue with the church).
I am reconsidering my dumb idea of a pithy credal intro creed. All I really was after was a one sentence thing that articulates the essence of the faith. I do think it important that somehow we reflect that Jesus is the second Adam, the God-intended human from before time, the one in whom we have our being, the vicarious human, not only in death but in life. That is what I mean by the One Man thing.
Just throwing out thoughts here. Mine are a dime a dozen now.
Not sure 'induced' is better, sounds like the Spirit drugged the Bible's authors or something.
The more I thought about it I like the word 'governed', it's more authoritative than 'influenced' or 'inspired' but it also makes clear that the writers were heavily involved too.
Okay, trembling you are giving us a great template, thank you. Now I will proceed, for the sake of discussion and clarity, to rip it apart:
We believe in one God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and in one Man in whom humanity finds its way, who is Jesus the Messiah, the very Son of God.
I still sort of like this although perhaps it could be better. How about after the Trinitarian part it says "and the Son became forever human, bringing God to humanity and humanity to God."
We believe in God the Father:
* omnipotent
* eternal
* uncreated creator
* holy
* the source of life
* whom the community of faith will love to his glory in eternity
Is omnipotent and eternal, and source of life, not covered in "uncreated creator"? What about "God the Father, the uncreated creator, holy and loving, all powerful and true, who will be loved to His glory for eternity by all who come in the name of the Son." Sorry, I realize I'm stirring up the original quite a bit. I guess I'm trying to get regular language instead of omnipotent. "Loving" sounds too weak though.
Okay that's all I have for now. I'll rip apart the Son and Spirit parts later.
How's this for a Bible bit:
"We believe that the Word of God is spoken through the Old and New Testaments as preserved and passed on by the Holy Spirit in and through the Church. As God's Word it is immanently trustworthy, the authority for life and truth. As a word spoken to and through people it requires the Spirit and the Church to be read with faithfulness."
How long do we want this thing? I guess it can be narrowed down. Maybe I'm missing something in my (largely fruitless) attempt to be short though.
sorry trembling, you probably didn't want to go to sentences yet
I had a further thought on the Bible part. Perhaps it should include:
"As a word spoken to and through people it requires the Spirit and the Church as well as dialogue with the world, to be read with faithfulness."
THink about it. Don't worry about the flow of the sentence yet. But think about that point. I suspect we'd all agree on this point, based on what I know of us, but this is a contentious topic for some, even though to me it has become something of a "no-brainer" (what an awful expression that is). The Spirit is active in the church and in the world. Therefore it could be possible that at times the church could hear from the world on something. But how is that possible? The world can be better than the church? What are the ramifications of that? This might seem like nothing but this is a huge issue. In fact, I think it has something to do with the schism of 1054. (the "filioque" clause of the creed: Orthodox thought the Spirit proceeded from the Father, the Catholics broke away (without asking nicely) and insisted that the Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son. Small difference? I'm not so sure. Perhaps the hugest split in all of churchdom. Due partly to politics and sin, but partly to huge ramifications in the debate. i.e. if the Spirit can come without the Son who needs the Son? I'm not sure that's how the Orthodox meant it or mean it, but when it is taken like that you can see the problems, biblically speaking)
Sorry to go off on that. Strong coffee just drank did I.
Fear, I included "source" because you kept talking about the Father as the one who sends, but didn't clarify what he sends. Want me to take it out now?
I think "uncreated creator" is different than omnipotent and eternal. Uncreated creator doesn't speak to his power or his future eternality.
Holy is good. I'm so-so about the loving part. And we already say "love" just about six words later so that will sound awkward.
well. i don't know. shouldn't we say God is love? if we're going to say He's holy I think we should say He is love. Maybe we should say He is good too, despite Tuna's belief to the contrary.
I'd be willing to lose source. The point was more that the Father is the sender of the Son. This does seem important, but maybe could be dropped. I like it though because it reminds us that the Son didn't just step in to save us from the drunken madman of a Father, but that the Father sent Him, and so initiates our redemption Himself.
sorry if I'm being difficult. it feels like we're turning the corner and the rubber is meeting the road and so I'm relooking at everything again like someone combing back over a brainstorm. (how is that for mixing a lot of metaphors? we should have an award for that)
I agree with most of what Fear is saying, his tone though is out of line. Fear is so hard to please, I can't belive Mrs. Fear has lasted so long with him.
I'll take a shot at the wording for the God the Father section.
We believe in God the Father, the uncreated creator; who is perfect in holiness, love, and power; and will be loved for eternity by the community of faith to bring him glory.
There are several atributes of the Father but it seems like this isn't the place to list all of them.
It's hard to know what terms to use in reverence to the Bible. There is so much debate on these terms and the general public has no idea of what they mean. I hope that this creed can be understood even by a non-christian.
HOw about saying- We believe the Bible is God's revelation of himself to humanity. We believe that Holy Spirit uses the Bible, the community of faith, and even the world to guide us into all truth.
I agree with Fear that it is important to say that sometimes the Holy Spirit uses the world to instruct the church. Slavery was an issue that the church had a wrong attidue on and the Holy Spirit used the world to change the position of the church. The Scriptures were used by both sides to make their point. This is just one example of how the Holy Spirit has used culture to instruct the church.
I think that's all for now but I may come back later if I have an epihany or if the egg salad sandwhich went bad in the back seat of my car.
egg salad in the back seat, I nearly dry heaved reading that.
I agree with Tuna's assertion that this creed should have readability as one of its goals, even readability by people who don't believe it. With that in mind I find this sentence a bit hard to read:
"whom the community of faith will love to his glory in eternity"
fear, I don't know if I agree with a lot of what you were saying about the church split: "if the Spirit can come without the Son who needs the Son?"
I'm pretty sure the Spirit couldn't have died for us so whether the Father sends both without the help of the other or not doesn't seem like a huge deal to me. Clearly a major church split proves that many disagree with me though.
A question for trembling about the Jesus section; is Jesus still fully human right now? It that biblical, if so can you point me to where the bible says that? I was rereading the creed and it struck me as a strange thought that Jesus could still be fully human in heaven. I guess if we consider ressurected people still fully human then he is.
Tuna, its good to have you around, even if your comments about my tone are sending me into a boiling rage, turning me into a frenzied whirling dervish of rage. Next time I see you you are going down. (unless the egg salad gets you before then)
I agree strongly that this creed needs to be readable. Even if it didn't need to be readable, the debates about inerrancy and infallibility are such that we couldn't be clear even if we used them unless we had another creed to explain them.
In regards to Jesus being fully human, they are constantly talking about this in seminary these days so I'll take a crack at explaining it. Basically the thought is that Jesus is fully human (and fully divine of course) right now because that is what he became, and how and why would he go back on that? The resurrection he had is supposedly the resurrection we will have, and so he is fully human right now the way we will be when we join him, if we are his.
I think this doctrine goes teh way of the dodo bird whenever we get dualistic about spirit v. matter and start thinking about the flesh as inherently evil (as was the story of the 20th century). It is remarkable how surprising this thought is to us evangelicals (myself included), but it really makes a lot of sense and is incredibly inspiring...
Some references:
The resurrection accounts are very concerned to tell us about Jesus' post-res. body. Why? Just to prove he raised? Then at the ascension (Acts 1) it is careful to tell us a cloud hides him from sight, it isn't some sort of transporter beam.
Then there is all the talk about the second Adam. 1 Corinthians 15, where it tells us about our new bodies, says that we get them from Christ the same way we got these ones from Adam.
And of course, Hebrews is all about Jesus being the Great High Priest at the Father's side, mediating for all time between humanity and God. It is thought by neo-orthodox theologians that this makes the most sense if he is still fully human, while fully divine, thus for all time and eternity bringing us together. If he goes back to how he was before the incarnation, whatever that is, then this all becomes pretty airy-ferry, which isn't a bad thing, but it doesn't really seem like it needs to be thought of that way since the Scripture is all "word-made-flesh" about it.
forgot to speak to tanti's thing. i guess it was a huge issue (the Spirit/Son thing) in 1054 because, a) there was other issues involved (people being jerks to each other) and b) there was the thought that it was a debate over the need for Jesus. If the Father gave the Spirit without the Son, so the thought goes, then we've got an interesting religion on our hands, but it isn't really biblical Christianity.
I'd tend to agree, although I wouldn't be so hard on the Orthodox here, since they didn't really mean the Son wasn't necessary. In fact, they would probably say that by bringing people to the Father it then follows that the Son would be involved (for what is a Father without a Son?).
Does any of this matter? Maybe not in the convoluted way I'm putting it, but I'm just trying to put some context to the discussion that is actually quite common today about Christian spirituality.
I tend to prefer talking about Spirit and Son together, because I think the Spirit loves to talk about the Son. We must remember that the Spirit is about guiding people to the Son and Father, but I don't think it necessarily has to be in that order.
This concludes me trying to sound smart.
What angers me is that I end up agreeing with Fear so often. I so desire to take the opposite position to Fear but I know he is right on many of these issues. Arrrrgggghhhhh!!
It is very important that Jesus is still fully human because he then has the capiability to be a mediator of God to humanity and humainty to God. If Jesus is not human right now then he can no longer be the mediator of us to God and I don't know about you but I need a lot of mediation!
Tanti the line, "whom the community will love to his glory in eternity" is trying to assert what humanity was created to be. I don't know what we will be doing in heaven for eterenity but the underlining theme to whatever we do will be to love God and bring him glory. There is probably better wording to use then mine but I am trying to be as succint as possible but still give an adequate picture of what we were created for.
tuna, you are taking this to the next level. i find myself online every five minutes to find out what more golden nuggets of wisdom you have to poop out next!
(it feels great to know that i can praise you and infuriorate you at the same time. like making a person barf on candy. i love it)
I will say this:
If two dogs are fighting I can successfully mediate between the two of them by say tossing one of them into a kennel. I don't have to be a dog in order to be the mediator in their little squabble. And so, I don't think humanity is a necessary prerequisite for the Son to be the mediator between humanity and God. Not to say that I don't believe he isn't still fully human, but I think that justification has more holes than my own justification of a second chance hell.
Is this really an issue of dogma worthy of a creed though. Maybe I'm missing some really important significance here but whether the Son is still fully human in the same way that he was fully human here on earth doesn't seem to me to be a life or death issue. That being said, I've been accused of heresy in the past and no doubt will be accused of it again; perhaps as soon as anybody reads this post.
And on a side note. I'm currently within about 10 km of some whirling dervishes. Perhaps i can secure photographic evidence.
I think that dog illustration falls short of being a useful parallel between what is happening between God and humanity in Christ. I also think it was rather funny.
I don't think we're saying Jesus is still human the way we are, we're saying he's human the way we will be. And he's still divine.
Where are you that you are within 10 clicks of a whirling dervish? A photo would be awesome if you can get one.
What the "eternal punishment" is a whirling dervish?
What the "eternal punishment" is a whirling dervish?
Best line ever.
The camp that I'm at is within 10km of a small city in libya called Ajdabya.
Now if my religious studies don't fail me, i believe the whirling dervishes belong to the mystical Sufi branch of Islam. And I am assuming that being in a muslim country there must be a few whirling dervishes in that city close to me. Maybe its a stretch, but i don't think so.
DRC, you remember that movie Baraka? Do you remember those monkish guys who spun around in circles wearing those dresses and had those Fez's on their heads? Those are whirling dervishes.
I figured my dog analogy wasn't soo good, but i thought i was being clever and humorous at the time so I posted it. I regret nothing.
I concur with trembling. Best line ever!!!
Moammar Qaddafi
"I regret nothing."
Second best line ever!
(wish I could say it)
I've enjoyed the conversation but I'm regretting introducing the topic because I had no idea how much work it would be! Here we go again:
For now I kept in the introductory line because I like it and because it summarizes things that would otherwise seem awkward within our trinitarian framework.
Again, the wording isn't there yet, of course. However, if you don't like the wording, PLEASE recommend an alternative for discussion.
We believe in one eternal God, who is three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
We believe in God the Father, the uncreated creator; who is perfect in holiness, love, and power; who sent his son to redeem creation and who receives the adoration of the community of faith both now and in eternity.
We believe in Jesus Christ, his only son; who lived a holy life as equally and fully God and human; who was crucified to the death; he arose and was seen by many, his death and resurrection initiated salvation by paying the price of sin for those who accept it; he ascended to heaven and dwells there now, still equally God and human; he will return to divide believers from non-believers, condemning non-believers to eternal separation from God and completing the salvation of believers.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, who governed the writing of the Holy Bible, God's revelation of himself to humanity; who uses the Bible, the community of faith, tradition, and the world to guide believers into all truth; who convicts humankind; who saves and sanctifies believers and equips them to act in faithfulness as a community by pursuing holiness and sharing the gospel with unbelievers.
So give me your thoughts on this version. You'll notice that I made some changes in the Father section because we were getting away from one of our initial mandates to talk about the role of the Father. Drawing inspiration from Fear I said the Father's role is sending and receiving. Adoration was swapped for love/glory/worship... hopefully it captures all three. Also I think it really leaves things open for the differing viewpoints on what we'll be doing in heaven.
I'm trying "governed" for the Bible but I'm skeptical about it. I think we're splitting hairs when it comes to inspire/influence/induce/govern. Each word captures slightly different nuances and each one has its own drawbacks... I don't think induced is any worse than governed... sorry, Tanti.
A few questions to guide the conversation:
In the Son section we have the line: "his death and resurrection initiated salvation by paying the price of sin for those who accept it". I think it's necessary. What do you think? If so, is there a better way to say it?
In the Spirit section we have the line: "who uses the Bible, the community of faith, tradition, and the world to guide believers into all truth" which is a good line but we also have the lines "who convicts humankind; who saves and sanctifies believers and equips them to act". These say the same thing (I think) and the second set captures more of the Spirit's role than the first. Is there a way to combine both?
By the way I see that I have already missed some of the suggestions put forward in recent comments. Sorry about that. I'm only human (in spite of the rumors). If they're important, please mention them again.
Awesome work trembling. I think refining it will be good but I already like it. I have to get going here but the one thing I have a suggestion on right now is this line in the Spirit section:
"who uses the Bible, the community of faith, tradition, and the world to guide believers into all truth"
I might rather say:
"who guides believers into all truth, working through the Bible, the community of faith, tradition, and the world"
Just because it is important that the Spirit come first in this sequence and because the Spirit may work through other things too.
Other quibbles: does it need to say believers? Is there a better way to say it other than "uses" or "works through"?
And maybe instead of "...community of faith, tradition..." we could say "...community of faith past, present and future..."?
Again, nice work Mister Trembles. Me likey.
One of my biggest frustrations is in finding the right words for Christians. I like "community of faith" because it's focused on two critical things that the over-used word "Christians" ignores. Problem is "community of faith" or "faith community" is a little unwieldy, especially if it's repeated a couple times... tends to eclipse the content.
"Believers" is okay -- better than "Christians", I think -- but still not as good.
I tried "faithful ones" too in an early edition that didn't make it to press.
Glad you "likey", Fear. I also like your re-work of the Bible portion. Good catch on putting the spirit first; very appropriate.
Perhaps we could just say this:
"who guides people into all truth, through the Bible, the Church, and the world".
What do you think? The Spirit DOES guide everyone into all truth; problem is, some accept and change while others just ignore the Spirit's conscience-twinging work and keep sinning.
And community of faith past present and future is great, but longer than ten long things. (haha, that was a tribute to CBC hyperbole). I took out CoF and tradition and just put in church with a capital C to capture an early discussed idea of the mystical, universal church.
Working on this sentence might allow us to take out some of the sentences that follow.
we're fizzling out her folks. maybe that's the way it has to be with this creed. after all, this is the generation where there are all questions and ideas but no answers.
or i should say there are at least there two valid answers to every question (i'm quoting a friend of mine who was lamenting this fact in my kitchen last night).
so is the best creed we can hope for a work in progress?
i for one haven't given up, but it does feel somewhat less important to even think about creeds than i'd say it felt in Nicea or Constantinople or wherever, don't you think?
TO some of Trembling's queries:
"his death and resurrection initiated salvation by paying the price of sin for those who accept it". atonement. yes this is necessary. but to brainstorm, what about: "by dying in sin and yet raising to life has made the way to life and salvation for those who will follow"?
And re. those two Spirit lines: I know they are similar but I see them both as important and am not feeling creative enought to combine them succinctly. maybe we can work at it though.
I do think Church instead of community of faith is better. Maybe not always in general conversation does it matter but in the context of the creed I think it should be Church. I hate losing that sense of community, local, global, and universal/mystical thought. But then you are getting pretty wordy.
Thanks for the post, Fear. My last one was apparently a conversation killer.
Okay we'll go with Church over community of faith. I like what you did for the death/resurrection piece.
I don't have a lot of time now but on Monday I'll compile the content and post the new creed.
Don't give up on the creed yet, I think it is coming along and we just need more time to struggle through some of the wording. I have been involved in trying to finish off the homework for a class I took and my brain is consumed in that project.
I hope I will have more insightful comments for you all later but for now I am empty and worthless man.
great reading. i'd love to encourage another week or two of refining, but due to my lack of contributions my opinion shouldn't carry much weight.
i like the content of the proposed creed (april 17 post). there is so much more that could be included. however, the conciseness is a benefit.
fear, perhaps i'm still confused after watching bjork on SNL last night, but i don't think i completely understand this sentence:
"by dying in sin and yet raising to life has made the way to life and salvation for those who will follow"?
what do you mean by "dying in sin"?
Good question underachiever, that one threw me off a bit too.
I still prefer 'governed' Trembling, not because it's great but because I don't like 'induced', I'll leave it up to everyone else.
Great work on this Trembling, this creed is a great project and even without further refining it's already a great statement of faith.
Thanks for the comments and feedback. I'm really enjoying this project.
Okay, here's the latest version; and kept in "governed", just for you Tanti...
We believe in one eternal God, who is three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
We believe in God the Father, the uncreated creator; who is perfect in holiness, love, and power; who sent his son to redeem creation and who receives the adoration of the community of faith both now and in eternity.
We believe in Jesus Christ; who lived a holy life as equally and fully God and human; who was crucified to the death; he arose and was seen by many; who, by dying in sin and returning to life made the way to salvation for those who choose to follow; he ascended to heaven and dwells there now, still equally God and human; he will return to divide believers from non-believers, condemning non-believers to eternal separation from God and completing the salvation of believers.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, who governed the writing of the Holy Bible, God's revelation of himself to humanity; who guides believers into all truth, working through the Bible, the community of faith, tradition, and the world; who convicts humankind; who saves and sanctifies believers and equips them to act in faithfulness as a community by pursuing holiness and sharing the gospel with unbelievers.
Wow, I'm becoming very happy with this. Well done, folks. Let's continue refining for a bit yet.
Yes, Fear, I presume this will be a work in progress. As for your comment regarding whether or not a creed is as important now as it was at Nicea... that's a good observation. Culturally, obviously, creeds do not carry the same weight as they once did. But as believers I think we should look to creeds more than we do as a framework for our faith... unless there is some other kind of better modern structure.
Looks good although haven't had a chance to pull out my fine toothed comb.
i'll just take an opportunity to explain "dying in sin".
i guess i just wonder if "dying for sin" covers it. it really touches on one aspect of atonement, which is the penal substitution aspect. further profundity comes when we consider the vicarious humanity of Jesus as he took on mortal flesh as well as sin (in some way) and thereby died in sin along with the human race rather than merely watching from above as we plunged to that destiny ourselves. then because of his divinity he arose and thereby became for us the New Adam and continues vicarious humanity in us by the SPirit and for us at the Father's right hand until our journey is complete.
i don't know if "dying in sin" covers this any better, in fact it may open up other faulty ideas we don't want to open up and so I'd be willing to part with it.
but that's what i was thinking about, besides trevor linden's greatness in game 7s of course.
I think you were right by saying "dying in sin".
If Jesus died for sin (and I'm ignoring the obviously incorrect idea that "for" means "on behalf of"), you're allowing the idea that Jesus didn't have to take on our sin... he simply died to overcome it without it touching him. (I know you're not saying that, but it's a potential misinterpretation).
However, if Jesus died in sin then we're acknowledging his role as a sacrifice in a clearer way: he became sin. I think this is a little more accurate given his torment in Gethsemane and on the cross.
Well, that's my opinion.
PS, please dumb down your posts. I'm a simple person.
Penal. haha
Hey, long time no talk. I was in Minneapolis for the weekend; I should have posted there to get on the coveted "wanderlust" list. My bad.
Okay we're either all deep in thought about this or we've reached a point where it's not so bad that we can't live with it the way it is.
I'm making a couple tweaks to clean up the language a bit.
We believe in one eternal God, who is three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
We believe in God the Father, the uncreated creator: perfect in holiness, love, and power; who sent his son to redeem creation; who receives the adoration of the community of faith both now and in eternity.
We believe in Jesus Christ; who lived a holy life as fully and equally God and human; who was crucified to the death; who arose and was seen by many; who, by dying in sin and returning to life made the way to salvation for those who choose to follow; who ascended to heaven and dwells there now, still fully and equally God and human; who will return to divide believers from non-believers, condemning non-believers to eternal separation from God and completing the salvation of believers.
We believe in the Holy Spirit; who governed the writing of the Holy Bible, God's revelation of himself to humanity; who guides believers into all truth, working through the Bible, the community of faith, tradition, and the world; who convicts humankind; who saves believers and equips them as a community to pursue holiness and to spread the gospel.
A few specific notes: Most of my changes were just tightening up the wording but I made some significant changes to the last paragraph.
From...
"who saves and sanctifies believers and equips them to act in faithfulness as a community by pursuing holiness and sharing the gospel with unbelievers"
To...
"who saves believers and equips them as a community to pursue holiness and to spread the gospel."
Reasons: sanctification and pursuing holiness are similar, with the emphasis on the actor as the only difference. Since the HS equips believers to pursue holiness I felt it showed a balance between God's action and the necessity of our effort.
I took out "to unbelievers" in the part about spreading the gospel since I think the gospel is still to be shared with believers, but just for different reasons and in different ways.
And I took out "act in faithfulness" since pursuing holiness and spreading the gospel are faithful actions. Not doing them is unfaithful, so faithfulness is a redundant word in this situation.
Any comments? I'd like to hear from everyone, of course, but I'd also love it if TheHansen could take a quick moment from her new job and give us some feedback.
This is the first time I've ever won the monolith of obscurity award. I'm honored... or perhaps offended. What was the obscure remark so that I may shed light on it?
Nicely done Trembles. For the record when I changed format I lost the award winners and forgot who won what. This is your topic this month so you can declare new winners if you like. By the way I think I lost one of the awards to. ANyone remember what it was?
I like the creed and would like to see us continue to beat up on it in the future. It should always be in flux. But I'm happy with it.
Except for the last paragraph. Even though the changes were good. Here's what I'm thinking:
1) "the Holy Bible" WHy do we call it that? I'm not sure I want to. God is Holy, the Bible is the truthful witness to him but if he wanted us to call it holy I think he'd have ensured we had the originals.
2) "to pursue holiness and to spread the gospel." I wonder why pursuing holiness comes first. Maybe it should be the other way around? And I think I like "share the gospel" better than "spread". I think "spreading" lends itself to the idea of wreckless streat-preeching (I notice I spelled those wrong but I'm leaving it because it looks cool) and tracts flapping on windshields. Also, sharing to me implies the aspect of "living" the gospel as well as "proclaiming" it.
Further thoughts?
By the way, Trembling and I have no idea what we're doing on this site after this topic. ANy ideas? We have had no requests for people to join us. Want to shake it up? Any drop outs? Maybe the next topic will be what to do with holy crap now that we have a creed.
Search your hearts. Bathe the matter in bathwater.
As for our post-creedal topics, I think we should eliminate one person. By lottery. Through stoning.
And now back to the creed...
Re: the gospel. Yes, share versus spread. It was share, I tried spread, but I'm indifferent so we'll fix that.
Re: the order of holiness/gospel. We need to do both. I think that gospel came second because of a previous wording choice. I'm indifferent to this, too, so unless someone has a good reason, I'll swap them around.
Re: Holy Bible. Fine, just Bible. I think it was Holy Scriptures and then I changed Scriptures to Bible. The book is holy but we don't need it in there. It's a little Olde English, I suppose.
And so now it becomes:
We believe in one eternal God, who is three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
We believe in God the Father, the uncreated creator: perfect in holiness, love, and power; who sent his son to redeem creation; who receives the adoration of the community of faith both now and in eternity.
We believe in Jesus Christ; who lived a holy life as fully and equally God and human; who was crucified to the death; who arose and was seen by many; who, by dying in sin and returning to life made the way to salvation for those who choose to follow; who ascended to heaven and dwells there now, still fully and equally God and human; who will return to divide believers from non-believers, condemning non-believers to eternal separation from God and completing the salvation of believers.
We believe in the Holy Spirit; who governed the writing of the Bible, God's revelation of himself to humanity; who guides believers into all truth, working through the Bible, the community of faith, tradition, and the world; who convicts humankind; who saves believers and equips them as a community to share the gospel and pursue holiness.
Dr. Fear,
I believe the award in absentia was the venerable "Middle Road Argument Diffuser" award. Having now diffused the argument that no doubt would have resulted when Tuna and Tanti started arguing about which award was missing I think that I should be the recipient this month. However, since it is Tremblings topic, maybe he should award to the Crapper of his choosing.
Nice work on the creed fellows. Sorry about my absence, I had to go to Regina for a just under a week to go visit the old familia.
I like what we have now. I also like that its posted at the top of the site on the homepage. That way we can read and reread it frequently and make suggestions as they come to us.
Beautiful work I say.
I'm not sure anyone was "worthy" of the Middle Road award. There were some surprisingly strong opinions on a variety of issues. I suppose that if this were Fear's topic he might award me with it because of my apathy toward issues like the order of gospel and holiness or the issue of governed vs. breathed vs. induced. I assure you all that it is not a middle road that diffused those arguments but really apathy. haha
I'm happy with the creed right now. I'd like to hear about other comments on it. But maybe Fear and I should chat a little about Holy Crap's next topics. I'm going out for lunch right now but when I get back I'll shoot you an email Fear.
What's going on with Holy Crap? We've been dormant for a while, I keep coming back looking for a new topic.
I've been away and then busy and then away again. Tuna was visiting Fear (which requires 110% of Fear's attention -- haha). Somewhere in there, Fear and I have been sporadically emailing about the next topic but last I heard nothing's been finalized.
Keep checking back.
Post a Comment