s/o support group statement of faith

[PinkInTheBlue]

Generally, a statement regarding the "infallible" or "inerrant" scriptures means they do not welcome old earth creationists. So, I wouldn't join a group with that in their SOF.

 

:iagree: Me too. There are many other things that would prevent me from signing that statement, but right off the bat that one would be a deal breaker.

 

I don't understand your group's need for such extreme exclusions. You aren't asking them to join a church. It's just a support group. But, oh well. :)

[Ellie]

I am not sure what all led to the decision. Part of it was that the group apparently was organized under CHEA, which I didn't really understand when I joined as CHEA membership and/or conference attendance were not required.

Just wanted to say that although I have had my own issues with CHEA in the past, groups are not organized "under CHEA." Support groups form all by their onesie. If they would like to be members of the CHEA support network, then there must be a SOF that is compatible, but even then, CHEA doesn't require support groups to have their members sign this SOF, because support groups don't organize "under CHEA."

 

I do totally agree with CHEA analysis of charter schools/other public school programs, though. And it wasn't just CHEA's leaders who did the research. It was Roy Hanson and Michael Farris/J. Michael Smith of HSLDA.

[Carol in Cal.]

Just wanted to say that although I have had my own issues with CHEA in the past, groups are not organized "under CHEA." Support groups form all by their onesie. If they would like to be members of the CHEA support network, then there must be a SOF that is compatible, but even then, CHEA doesn't require support groups to have their members sign this SOF, because support groups don't organize "under CHEA."

 

Sure this one is. It is a registered support group under CHEA. One of the requirements therefore is that leaders may not be registered with a public school homeschooling charter or any homeschooling group that is not specifically Christian.

 

I do totally agree with CHEA analysis of charter schools/other public school programs, though. And it wasn't just CHEA's leaders who did the research. It was Roy Hanson and Michael Farris/J. Michael Smith of HSLDA.

 

Yup, and they are reaching. They are stating possibilities as fact, which is despicable, and has cost them a lot of respect among homeschoolers. Exaggerations are not truthful. They are weakening their own position.

[MamaSheep]

Most of these questions are answered in basic church histories. The reason for arguing over the doctrine was to find what what true. The doctrine of three but not of one substance was one of the earliest things that had to be clarified in the early Church. The creeds are compressions of what the Scriptures teach. I know people of good will disagree on that. However, they are necessary. Even in your own post, you had to use your own words, not words of Scripture (whether the Bible or Mormon documents) to express what you believe. That is a creed, by definition.

 

We live in a time of relativistic truth. But this is not the way the world has always lived, and that deserves some consideration when we talk about a faith that claims any basis in history.

 

I have to respectfully disagree with your assertion that an informal explanation of belief is the same thing as a formal "creed" in the sense that we're talking about here.

 

I do agree that church history is informative on the subject of creeds, though. I would say, however, that they are "interpretations" of scripture rather than "compressions", and in my opinion some of the interpretations that have historically been codified as formalized "creeds" do not actually line up well with the truths found in scripture. Yes, the councils argued to try to determine what was true, but truth is not established by majority vote. As you point out, truth is not relative, truth just IS. It is established by God, not by man. The vote of the council only establishes what the organization will teach. It may or may not line up with actual truth. Again, in my opinion, the historical councils got some things wrong. And early mistakes were compounded as later tenets were built on them. This is one reason I think it's important to compare the historical creeds to the historical scriptures. The scriptures are closer to the source.

[milovany]

I do agree that church history is informative on the subject of creeds, though. I would say, however, that they are "interpretations" of scripture rather than "compressions", and in my opinion some of the interpretations that have historically been codified as formalized "creeds" do not actually line up well with the truths found in scripture. Yes, the councils argued to try to determine what was true, but truth is not established by majority vote. As you point out, truth is not relative, truth just IS. It is established by God, not by man. The vote of the council only establishes what the organization will teach. It may or may not line up with actual truth. Again, in my opinion, the historical councils got some things wrong. And early mistakes were compounded as later tenets were built on them. This is one reason I think it's important to compare the historical creeds to the historical scriptures. The scriptures are closer to the source.

 

But this leaves out a Scripturally-stated purpose of the church (which was not Scripture when the creed was created by the church -- it became Scripture at the hand of the same church that had previously given us the creed; why can we trust that they got putting the Bible together correctly, but blew it with a basic creed?): the purpose of the church, in practice and in Scripture, is to be the pillar and foundation of Truth. The church WAS given the task of "holding up" the truth Christ left with his apostles and their successors; and it did not fail at its task.

 

So it seems like the only other option is to say that the church didn't get it right in the beginning, but a church that was created much later in time (i.e., a reformed or restored church developed more than a 1500 years after the fact) did. This itself is very, very unscriptural. The Nicene Creed was THE statement of faith of the one and only church for 1000 years (and of the two churches that resulted from the great schism for another 500 years). This is a looong time, and this fact cannot be brushed away just because we in this late point in time might not understand how it all came to be early on, you know?

 

It's much easier for me to believe that Christ chose his apostles well, they passed on the faith to their successors as it had been handed to them, and it kept going under one faith, one church, one baptism throughout time even to this point, than for me to believe that it all fell apart within two generations of Christ's death because he didn't train his apostles very well and the church went apostate for 1500 +/- years until the Holy Spirit fixed it within one of the resulting denominations (or, another possible "ending" in this scenario, that the many divisions of Christianity are the way He designed the church).

 

Both of the scenarios in the above paragraph exist -- which one is His will for the church?

Edited July 10, 2011 by milovaný

[Little Nyssa]

Hi! I totally get the idea of having a SOF-- if the other adults are going to be teaching your children, of course you want to know where they are coming from.

As an EO, I would have to consider your SOF really carefully. I think there are some terms on there that you would interpret one way, and I might interpret another-- in that case there is no use for the SOF, if everyone signs it because they interpret it in their own way. Other EO posters have already talked about specific issues, and done it very well, so I will just add:

Here are the questions I would ask, beyond the SOF itself:

1.How would your group react if someone said, "I would really like to join your group, but could I substitute the Nicene Creed instead?" 2.And, if an EO/RC/Anglican etc should join, would the rest of your group constantly be trying to change them? 3. And, by work of the Holy Spirit, do you mean that everyone has to speak in tongues? 4. Do you think that a lot of your members sign the SOF dishonestly or by providing their own interpretation? 5. Would it be possible to have a simpler SOF that references the Incarnation, Resurrection, Trinity, Deity of Christ and leave it at that?

I know fellow EO homeschoolers who have refused to join groups based on SOFs like yours. For myself, if I really liked the group, I think I would be asking about substituting the Nicene Creed. If that were not allowed, it would be very tempting to just sign it, and tell myself that it could be interepreted in an Orthodox manner, especially if I were isolated and needed community... I would be discussing it with my priest and DH and I hope I would decide what is right.

[Donna T.]

I was reading the Catholic/Protestant thread about the statement of faith and got to wondering about my own group's SOF. We have the word "Christian" as part of our group's name and require prospective members to attend at least 3 meetings before applying for membership so that everyone can get an idea as to whether we will be a good fit for their family or not. We are not a co-op, just a close-knit support group that shares with and leans on each other as well as providing lots of activities for the kids. We are also not affiliated with any particular church. I'd like to know if there was anything in our SOF that would be offensive to any who calls themselves Christian... whether Catholic, Orthodox, or whatever. Thanks!

 

 

 

1. We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.

2. We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

3. We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles , in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.

4. We believe that for salvation of lost and sinful man, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential and that salvation is received through faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.

5. We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit.

6. We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost. They that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of ****ation.

7. We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

 

This SOF is in our bylaws, and by signing the membership agreement, a family is agreeing to all that is in our bylaws.

 

I think it is very nice and could sign it whole-heartedly.

[MamaSheep]

But this leaves out a Scripturally-stated purpose of the church (which was not Scripture when the creed was created by the church -- it became Scripture at the hand of the same church that had previously given us the creed; why can we trust that they got putting the Bible together correctly, but blew it with a basic creed?): the purpose of the church, in practice and in Scripture, is to be the pillar and foundation of Truth. The church WAS given the task of "holding up" the truth Christ left with his apostles and their successors; and it did not fail at its task.

 

I think perhaps you misunderstood my position on this--which is perfectly understandable since my earlier comments had a different focus and only lightly touched on this. My position is not that the church draws its authority from scripture. Nor would I agree that scripture draws its authority from the church. Rather, my position is that both the church and scripture derive their authority from God, and that Christ is the pillar and foundation of Truth. In my opinion, scripture was the word of God when it was written. And even before that, really, in the unwritten form of inspiration through the Spirit, as in 2 Peter 1:21 which says, "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." The writings did not "become" the word of God because the church said so. Holy men of God recieved the word of God by revelation from God and wrote it down, but it was already the word of God when God "spoke" it. It didn't need the church to make it such. Prior to Christ's earthly ministry this revelation was received and written by prophets. Afterward it was the apostles and other inspired men who received prophetic revelation, some of which was written down, and a portion of that was preserved until a church council was convened, centuries after the revelations were originally written down. At that point what the church did was to determine which of the writings the church would consider authentic and authoritative. They acknowledged that certain writings that had already been in common use in the church since the beginning were scripture, but they didn't make ordinary writings suddenly "become" the word of God. The writings have authority because they record revelation given by God. But the authority originates in God, not in the writings themselves, and not in the spiritual leaders who wrote them down. Thus, my position is that the authority of scripture comes from God, not from the church. It is authoritative independent of the church because it is from God. Had there never even been a church, truly prophetic writings would still have been authoritative as the word of God. As to whether the church got it "right" when assembling the Biblical canon, I guess that depends on what is meant by "right", and that's a whole other discussion. From the time the canon was first formulated up until now there has always been some ongoing debate as to which books should be included. That's why Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Bibles have some differences in this area. But again, that's a whole other discussion. I'll just say I believe it is sufficiently "right" to serve its purpose, and that I believe the Bible to be authoritative as the word of God. I would also assert that everything in the New Testament was written well before the Nicene Creed was formulated. And that there was reason that the creeds were not canonized as scripture.

 

I also believe that the authority of the early apostles and other church leaders came from God through Christ, who called them and ordained them--not from being able to interpret scripture "properly". Their authority existed independent of scripture. They recieved revelation from God and wrote so that others would know about it, but even if they had never put any of it into a written form their authority would certainly have remained intact. It was not derived from, or dependent on scripture. It was, however, dependent on God, and God could remove that authority should any man attempt to misuse it. Furthermore, it was not an authority that could be assumed withouth proper authorization from God, nor was it something that could be bought or sold, or given through appointment by a civil ruler such as the Roman emperor. I believe that any time a church leader was appointed through improper channels his authority was invalid because it stemmed from some source other than God, such as a civil ruler or a council of men who were not authorized to make that decision. And not having valid authority himself, he would have been unable to extend valid authority to anyone else.

 

So it seems like the only other option is to say that the church didn't get it right in the beginning, but a church that was created much later in time (i.e., a reformed or restored church developed more than a 1500 years after the fact) did. This itself is very, very unscriptural.

A third option would be to say that the church DID get it right in the beginning, but that it was eroded over time due to both internal division and external persecution and fell into apostasy. Just as the children of Adam fell away, and the descendants of Noah fell away, and the descendants of Abraham fell away into error. It's a very scriptural pattern. I see evidence of this beginning to happen even as the epistles in the New Testament were written, and I believe it to have been prophesied by Christ and His apostles in the early days of the church. God knew it would happen, it was not a surprise to Him. It was a result of man's exercise of free will, which is granted by God, and which God did not usurp, not a failure on God's part.

 

And I believe that in due time God directly called new men of God through revelation, just as He had done in the past when the covenant people fell away from His truths. I believe He re-established His authentic church by direct revelation, according to the previously established pattern. I don't believe it developed through reformation and I don't believe that it was "restored" through a process of men suddenly "correctly" interpreting the Bible after many centuries of reading it wrong. I believe that the Father and Son appeared to Joseph Smith and called him to the work in person, and I believe that apostolic authority was restored when Peter, James, and John appeared as resurrected beings and laid their hands on men who were chosen by God and ordained them to be apostles in Christ's church during this time of earth's history. I believe that holy men of God recieved, and continue to recieve, inspired guidance through the Holy Spirit to guide the church now, just as it was in the church that Christ originally established.

 

I understand and respect that you do not believe this. I hope you can respect that I do.

 

The Nicene Creed was THE statement of faith of the one and only church for 1000 years (and of the two churches that resulted from the great schism for another 500 years). This is a looong time, and this fact cannot be brushed away just because we in this late point in time might not understand how it all came to be early on, you know?

 

I think you are oversimplifying a bit. There were always disputes about core doctrines within the Christian church, such as the Judaizers in the early days and the later Gnostics Montanists, Donatists, Arians, and so forth. One of the reasons it was decided that the council of Nicea was necessary was because there was such division on core beliefs. The Nicene Creed was certainly important in the church after it was written, but the church was around for almost three centuries before that, so I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that it was THE statement of faith for the first 1000 years. Also, it seems like the Chalcedonian creed and the Athanasian creed were developed in there somewhere--fifth and sixth centuries was it?

 

I agree that history should not be brushed aside lightly. But I can't accept that a thing should be accepted as true and accurate merely because it is old. (Nor do I think truth is established by virtue of a thing being new and shiny. Age does not determine truth any more than does majority vote, in my opinion.)

[MamaSheep]

It's much easier for me to believe that Christ chose his apostles well, they passed on the faith to their successors as it had been handed to them, and it kept going under one faith, one church, one baptism throughout time even to this point, than for me to believe that it all fell apart within two generations of Christ's death because he didn't train his apostles very well and the church went apostate for 1500 +/- years until the Holy Spirit fixed it within one of the resulting denominations (or, another possible "ending" in this scenario, that the many divisions of Christianity are the way He designed the church).

 

Both of the scenarios in the above paragraph exist -- which one is His will for the church?

 

I, too, believe that Christ chose His apostles well, and that He trained them well and they were faithful in their work of teaching accurately what they had been taught. However, I do not believe they passed on their apostolic authority beyond the first few generations since there were no more apostles in the church after that time. And the more I learn about history, the more apparent it seems to me that the church did not continue under one faith, one church, one baptism down to the present time. The teachings of the apostles were misunderstood, even in their own time, as is evident in the epistles of the New Testament, which constantly and repeatedly call the various congregations of the church at that time to repent and return to the faith as it was originally taught. The early heresies demonstrate that people continued to misunderstand and misinterpret them and go off on various wild tangents. And the further down the historical thread I go, the more divergence I see from the original form of Christianity, even among Christians who made a valiant attempt to cling to orthodoxy. Like you, however, I think God intended there to be only one church, and I see the multiplicity of denominations as a problem. I, too, find it a bit of a stretch to think that God would have picked one of the many offshoots and "fixed" just it. It makes more sense to me that God would make a fresh start--transplant a new tree from the original root, so to speak. I would expect that this new tree would certainly share many characteristics with the old tree--the ones the old tree had maintained--but it would draw its "life" directly from the roots, not through the old tree trunk and branches. And this is what I believe happened.

 

But I understand and respect that you believe differently, and I am not asking you to believe as I do. That is between you and God, as far as I'm concerned.

 

My original point was only that as a person who considers myself a Christian (which is what the OP asked about), I would not be comfortable signing a document that stated I agreed with the Nicene Creed because I don't consider the creed to be authoritative.

 

And I must say that one of the reasons I enjoy inclusive groups like this one is that we can discuss things like this and stay friends even when we don't agree with each other. :)

[twoforjoy]

I was reading the Catholic/Protestant thread about the statement of faith and got to wondering about my own group's SOF. We have the word "Christian" as part of our group's name and require prospective members to attend at least 3 meetings before applying for membership so that everyone can get an idea as to whether we will be a good fit for their family or not. We are not a co-op, just a close-knit support group that shares with and leans on each other as well as providing lots of activities for the kids. We are also not affiliated with any particular church. I'd like to know if there was anything in our SOF that would be offensive to any who calls themselves Christian... whether Catholic, Orthodox, or whatever. Thanks!

 

 

1. We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.
   
2. We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
   
3. We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles , in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.
   
4. We believe that for salvation of lost and sinful man, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential and that salvation is received through faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.
   
5. We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit.
   
6. We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost. They that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of ****ation.
   
7. We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.
   

 

Would it be offensive? No. Would it be something that Catholics, Orthodox Christians, or many mainline Protestants could sign on to in good faith? Probably not.

 

I agree with the people who've said that "infallible" and "inerrant" are words that would make signing this difficult for many Christians, and often seem like codewords to indicate that anybody who doesn't read certain biblical passages in a certain literalist way (i.e., not interpreting Gen 1 as literal 6-day history) is excluded. AFAIK no historic creed made any claim of this sort about the Bible. If anything needs to be said about the Bible at all--and I don't think it needs to be, since the historic creeds work just fine without such references--I think "inspired" would be taking it far enough, if the goal is to be inclusive of as many Christian groups as possible.

 

But, is the goal to be inclusive of as many Christians as possible? I guess that's the issue. If you really want to include as broad a spectrum of Christians as possible, then this wouldn't work. But, if that isn't your goal, then it's fine.

 

If the goal is to include as broad a spectrum of Christians as possible, I'm not sure why a formal SoF beyond "This group is open to all Christians" is necessary. If the goal is to include only those Christians who meet certain criteria, then any group is obviously free to list their criteria and exclude those who don't fit.

[twoforjoy]

I agree that history should not be brushed aside lightly. But I can't accept that a thing should be accepted as true and accurate merely because it is old. (Nor do I think truth is established by virtue of a thing being new and shiny. Age does not determine truth any more than does majority vote, in my opinion.)

 

I don't think it's simply that it's old that is the issue, but that it's also broad. Catholics affirm the Nicene Creed; Orthodox Christians affirm it; Anglicans affirm it; every mainline Protestant church I've ever attended has affirmed it. I've attended a somewhat conservative Protestant church a few times, and they've affirmed it. If you want inclusive, then I think the Apostle's or Nicene Creed is, while not 100% inclusive, as close as you are going to get.

 

Many of the SoFs that I see look more like an affirmation of one certain type of contemporary Western Protestant fundamentalism than of the historic, broad teachings of Christianity. And, if that's what people are looking to affirm, then that's fine. But, I think the issue is that many times people say they are looking for an inclusive SoF. If they are, then I'm kind of baffled that historic creeds aren't more often suggested and used, because those are pretty much the basis for every branch of Christianity.

 

That said, I probably wouldn't join a group that wanted me to sign on to one of the creeds, either, not because I can't affirm the creed, but because I'm not interested in a Christian-only group.

[LittleIzumi]

Mama Sheep, I :001_wub: you.

[dangermom]

Mama Sheep, I :001_wub: you.

:iagree: Always there with great explanations!

[YLVD]

I just don't understand why anyone has to sign something like this. If you are a Christian group why not just say so and be done. If someone is not Christian, but still wants to be in your group and gets along with everyone then where is the problem?

 

Signing something like this is a guarantee of nothing.

 

I realize it wasn't your question. I do think that some of the statements leave some Christians out and I think unless you keep it insanely simple you will end up doing that.

 

:iagree:

[MamaSheep]

I don't think it's simply that it's old that is the issue, but that it's also broad. Catholics affirm the Nicene Creed; Orthodox Christians affirm it; Anglicans affirm it; every mainline Protestant church I've ever attended has affirmed it. I've attended a somewhat conservative Protestant church a few times, and they've affirmed it. If you want inclusive, then I think the Apostle's or Nicene Creed is, while not 100% inclusive, as close as you are going to get.

 

Oh I agree that it's very broadly accepted. In the snip you quoted I was responding to Milovany's very valid argument that something that old should not be discarded casually. I agree that longevity and broad acceptance are both good reasons to give the Nicene Creed serious consideration. And I do think it is an important historical document. I just believe it is a product of man's philosophizing and scholarly debate about God's revelation rather than a direct expression of revelation, and to me that is an important distinction. I have seen a number of different iterations and translations of the Nicene Creed, and some of them I could actually agree with, provided I was allowed to understand the "of the same substance" part as meaning that the Father and Son are the same kind of being rather than that they are the same actual entity--that the Father begat a Son that was the same as he, rather than that the Father begat himself. Certainly it is the Christian creed that I feel comes closest to Christianity in its original form as expressed in the Biblical record. [Eta: Actually, on second thought, I think I would consider the Apostles' Creed closer. But Nicea comes close too.]

 

And I agree with you that if a group wanted to be inclusive just of "mainline" believers the Nicene Creed would be a really good choice for a statement of faith. But for some groups (not just mine) just the fact that it is a man-made formalized creed is going to be a problem--just as for some people the group having a SOF in the first place is going to be a problem. And other people and groups will have a problem with some sentiment expressed in it or the turn of a phrase. After all, later creeds were formulated precisely because not everyone agreed on the phrasing or the precise interpretations of the doctrines included in the Nicene Creed. If slight differences in wording could cause schisms in the church one would hardly expect them to never result in any disagreement amongst homeschool moms. Be that as it may, the OP was looking to include everyone who considered themselves Christians, not just those who attend mainline churches.

 

I would also comment, just generally, that I don't consider broad acceptance to be proof of "truth" any more than I consider longevity to be automatic verification. A lie is a lie no matter how many people believe it. An error is an error no matter how long it's been around. Just as a general principle. As a more specific religious example, the old Egyptian pantheon is ancient and had broad acceptance for many centuries, but those facts in and of themselves are not sufficient for me to accept them as real or their stories as true.

 

Many of the SoFs that I see look more like an affirmation of one certain type of contemporary Western Protestant fundamentalism than of the historic, broad teachings of Christianity. And, if that's what people are looking to affirm, then that's fine. But, I think the issue is that many times people say they are looking for an inclusive SoF. If they are, then I'm kind of baffled that historic creeds aren't more often suggested and used, because those are pretty much the basis for every branch of Christianity.

I agree with you that the SOFs tend to mostly describe variations on a particular thread of modern Christianity. I think partly that's because that branching of Christianity came up with the idea. Or at least began calling the things "Statement of Faith" rather than "Creed".

 

As far as the historical creeds being the "basis for every branch of Christianity" I think most of the sola scriptura folks would probably say that their churches are "based" in the Bible.

 

That said, I probably wouldn't join a group that wanted me to sign on to one of the creeds, either, not because I can't affirm the creed, but because I'm not interested in a Christian-only group.

 

:001_smile:

Edited July 11, 2011 by MamaSheep

[Carol in Cal.]

So it seems like the only other option is to say that the church didn't get it right in the beginning, but a church that was created much later in time (i.e., a reformed or restored church developed more than a 1500 years after the fact) did. This itself is very, very unscriptural. The Nicene Creed was THE statement of faith of the one and only church for 1000 years (and of the two churches that resulted from the great schism for another 500 years). This is a looong time, and this fact cannot be brushed away just because we in this late point in time might not understand how it all came to be early on, you know?

 

It's much easier for me to believe that Christ chose his apostles well, they passed on the faith to their successors as it had been handed to them, and it kept going under one faith, one church, one baptism throughout time even to this point, than for me to believe that it all fell apart within two generations of Christ's death because he didn't train his apostles very well and the church went apostate for 1500 +/- years until the Holy Spirit fixed it within one of the resulting denominations (or, another possible "ending" in this scenario, that the many divisions of Christianity are the way He designed the church).

 

 

 

You know, this sounds like you're referring to the Lutheran church (the 1500 year time period), but it's not what we teach.

 

Whether or not it's the Lutheran church to which you are referring, here's what we believe: We believe, teach, and confess that the three ecumenical creeds are a true exposition of the Word of God. Those are the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. No Lutheran would have any difficulty ever with committing to the Nicene Creed as a statement of faith.

 

Lutherans do not teach that the church didn't get it right in the beginning, but rather that it did. We teach that there were accretions that arose much later, some of which are harmless though erroneous, but some of which actually cause great harm. We don't teach a rapid change of erroneous practices, unless they cause great harm. We tend to be quite conservative in the classic sense of the term. We see ourselves as returning to closer to the historic church, which is probably why Lutherans and Orthodox tend to be more similar than not, both retaining a lot of the same teachings, writings, and practices of the Roman Catholic church, and Lutherans discarding a lot of the RC innovations that the Orthodox have never adopted. Lutherans are part of the church catholic, as are all Christians.

[MamaSheep]

You know, this sounds like you're referring to the Lutheran church (the 1500 year time period), but it's not what we teach.

 

Whether or not it's the Lutheran church to which you are referring, here's what we believe: We believe, teach, and confess that the three ecumenical creeds are a true exposition of the Word of God. Those are the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. No Lutheran would have any difficulty ever with committing to the Nicene Creed as a statement of faith.

 

Lutherans do not teach that the church didn't get it right in the beginning, but rather that it did. We teach that there were accretions that arose much later, some of which are harmless though erroneous, but some of which actually cause great harm. We don't teach a rapid change of erroneous practices, unless they cause great harm. We tend to be quite conservative in the classic sense of the term. We see ourselves as returning to closer to the historic church, which is probably why Lutherans and Orthodox tend to be more similar than not, both retaining a lot of the same teachings, writings, and practices of the Roman Catholic church, and Lutherans discarding a lot of the RC innovations that the Orthodox have never adopted. Lutherans are part of the church catholic, as are all Christians.

 

You know, it didn't occur to me that she was talking about any specific church. I just thought she was talking about the Reformation in general.

:confused:

[Ellie]

I just don't understand why anyone has to sign something like this. If you are a Christian group why not just say so and be done. If someone is not Christian, but still wants to be in your group and gets along with everyone then where is the problem?

 

Signing something like this is a guarantee of nothing.

 

I realize it wasn't your question. I do think that some of the statements leave some Christians out and I think unless you keep it insanely simple you will end up doing that.

:iagree:

 

I was once a member of a group that didn't require members to sign anything. We didn't make a big deal about it; it just never came up.

 

So one year after our only business meeting (the others being Moms' Night Out), when I mentioned that we didn't require people to sign a SOF, one of the women called me and proceeded to chew me out because we didn't require a SOF. Apparently, the fact that she had never signed one didn't trigger the thought that, you know, we didn't require it. Anyway, she was livid because one of the regulars was a [insert name of group here usually considered NOT to be Christian; it doesn't matter which one], and OMG, she had been to a POTLUCK at this woman's house! She was unequally yoked with an UNBELIEVER!!!! :svengo:

 

At that time I was not yet a leader; I was just the most senior member at that meeting and someone had to facilitate it, KWIM? So at our next meeting, I shared this story, and suggested that maybe it would be a good idea to have something written/printed up that said we didn't require a SOF, but that this is what we generally believed, and hand it to visitors. Everyone agreed (this woman was not there, BTW; in fact, she rarely attended). I suggested that maybe we should have two or three people who were sort of co-leaders, and that those co-leaders needed to be in agreement with our SOF); everyone agreed. And the group lived happily ever after (for a few years, when the SOF came up again, and a bad Catholic/non-Catholic Christian experience with another group that trickled over to this one, with this group ending up dissolving. Sad.).

[8circles]

You know, this sounds like you're referring to the Lutheran church (the 1500 year time period), but it's not what we teach.

 

Whether or not it's the Lutheran church to which you are referring, here's what we believe: We believe, teach, and confess that the three ecumenical creeds are a true exposition of the Word of God. Those are the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. No Lutheran would have any difficulty ever with committing to the Nicene Creed as a statement of faith.

 

Lutherans do not teach that the church didn't get it right in the beginning, but rather that it did. We teach that there were accretions that arose much later, some of which are harmless though erroneous, but some of which actually cause great harm. We don't teach a rapid change of erroneous practices, unless they cause great harm. We tend to be quite conservative in the classic sense of the term. We see ourselves as returning to closer to the historic church, which is probably why Lutherans and Orthodox tend to be more similar than not, both retaining a lot of the same teachings, writings, and practices of the Roman Catholic church, and Lutherans discarding a lot of the RC innovations that the Orthodox have never adopted. Lutherans are part of the church catholic, as are all Christians.

:iagree:Especially the bolded.

I would also comment, just generally, that I don't consider broad acceptance to be proof of "truth" any more than I consider longevity to be automatic verification. A lie is a lie no matter how many people believe it. An error is an error no matter how long it's been around. Just as a general principle. As a more specific religious example, the old Egyptian pantheon is ancient and had broad acceptance for many centuries, but those facts in and of themselves are not sufficient for me to accept them as real or their stories as true.

 

 

:iagree:As well as most of what you've posted that's too large to quote. Except those LDS-specific things as I'm not but you've outlined your reasoning really well & I agree & thank you.

 

So one year after our only business meeting (the others being Moms' Night Out), when I mentioned that we didn't require people to sign a SOF, one of the women called me and proceeded to chew me out because we didn't require a SOF. Apparently, the fact that she had never signed one didn't trigger the thought that, you know, we didn't require it. Anyway, she was livid because one of the regulars was a [insert name of group here usually considered NOT to be Christian; it doesn't matter which one], and OMG, she had been to a POTLUCK at this woman's house! She was unequally yoked with an UNBELIEVER!!!! :svengo:

 

If it wasn't so sad it would be funny.

[Ellie]

If it wasn't so sad it would be funny.

I know, right? :001_huh: When I answered her that I was pretty sure attending a potluck at someone's home was not the same as being unequally yoked I tried very hard to keep the sarcasm and disbelief out of my voice. :glare:

[MamaSheep]

I know, right? :001_huh: When I answered her that I was pretty sure attending a potluck at someone's home was not the same as being unequally yoked I tried very hard to keep the sarcasm and disbelief out of my voice. :glare:

 

Well it sure made me giggle. I guess witnessing to unbelievers is supposed to be limited to outreach efforts where they stay on their own side of the fence.:lol: