Comments on: Changing Church: Part 4 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/09/changing-church-part-4/ Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:51:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.3 By: Chris Austere http://zealfortruth.org/2007/09/changing-church-part-4/#comment-1283 Chris Austere Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:08:50 +0000 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/09/changing-church-part-4/#comment-1283 "When churches and denominations recognize the authority and truthfulness of these creeds, they are often doing so out of a sense of tradition - or only because they wish to remain within the bounds of orthodoxy and recognize somehow that is set by these creeds." I believe this to be a true statement. However, from my point of view, creeds are important because the are generally an affirmation of New Testament truth. That is different from identifying with them out of a sense of tradition. “When churches and denominations recognize the authority and truthfulness of these creeds, they are often doing so out of a sense of tradition - or only because they wish to remain within the bounds of orthodoxy and recognize somehow that is set by these creeds.”

I believe this to be a true statement. However, from my point of view, creeds are important because the are generally an affirmation of New Testament truth. That is different from identifying with them out of a sense of tradition.

]]> By: thainamu http://zealfortruth.org/2007/09/changing-church-part-4/#comment-1289 thainamu Wed, 19 Sep 2007 01:34:24 +0000 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/09/changing-church-part-4/#comment-1289 I like reciting the creeds, even though I've mostly attended churches which don't do so regularly, because they are a summary statement of orthodoxy and because they are a reminder of the things Christians from many denominations can agree on. (Mostly we hear about the things they can't agree on.) After reading this article I found a website where the author crossed out all the parts of the Nicene creed he didn't agree with, which seemed to me a pointless exercise--the creed is so minimal and basic that if you can't accept it, you really shouldn't call yourself a Christian. I like reciting the creeds, even though I’ve mostly attended churches which don’t do so regularly, because they are a summary statement of orthodoxy and because they are a reminder of the things Christians from many denominations can agree on. (Mostly we hear about the things they can’t agree on.)

After reading this article I found a website where the author crossed out all the parts of the Nicene creed he didn’t agree with, which seemed to me a pointless exercise–the creed is so minimal and basic that if you can’t accept it, you really shouldn’t call yourself a Christian.

]]> By: Jew http://zealfortruth.org/2007/09/changing-church-part-4/#comment-1290 Jew Wed, 19 Sep 2007 03:40:32 +0000 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/09/changing-church-part-4/#comment-1290 Yeah, the Nicene creed is pretty basic. I had never thought of using it as a launchpad for exploring church history though. That's a great idea. Yeah, the Nicene creed is pretty basic. I had never thought of using it as a launchpad for exploring church history though. That’s a great idea.

]]> By: Daniel http://zealfortruth.org/2007/09/changing-church-part-4/#comment-1829 Daniel Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:26:43 +0000 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/09/changing-church-part-4/#comment-1829 Vain, in the context, means <I>empty</I>. When we watch a Shakespearean play we are watching a "vain" repetition. The conversations that are taking place in the play are not real conversations, the actors are never speaking to one another, but instead repeating a known dialog between themselves in turn. The observer may see a conversation, but there is no conversation taking place. Even if the actors could sincerely brainwash themselves for each performance such that their recitation became an actual dialog, even then we would only be seeing (at best) a heartfelt, but utterly empty recitation. Vain, in the context, means empty.

When we watch a Shakespearean play we are watching a “vain” repetition. The conversations that are taking place in the play are not real conversations, the actors are never speaking to one another, but instead repeating a known dialog between themselves in turn. The observer may see a conversation, but there is no conversation taking place. Even if the actors could sincerely brainwash themselves for each performance such that their recitation became an actual dialog, even then we would only be seeing (at best) a heartfelt, but utterly empty recitation.

]]>