Why should I believe that any given creed or confession is an accurate representation of the faith of the apostles and not just a description of what people believe about the Bible at the time they wrote the creed? I struggled with this, considering how many Protestant creeds differ on key elements like baptism and the Eucharist.
I do not think that the Catholic Church uses symbol in the way that you say. I think it has a much more robust view of what symbol means and does see the creeds as regulative.
That is definitely a PLUS point of Liturgical worship. The content remains consistent regardless of who the "preacher" (conservative or liberal). Unlike a run of the mill evangelical or charismatic church - you are definitely at the mercy of the "preacher" who is running the show. You may not get any scripture at all - and definitely NONE of the historical creedal confessions.
Early church fathers had a larger canon and read books that people do not read today. What Luther excluded as he thought was not useful in his day would really be useful today. Namely book of Sirach.
@@Mason_O@Mason_O My point is not only on where the line, is, but how deep it is. I think it's more useful to think of the canon as a line in the sand (not an idiom) and not as a chasm. Unfortunately, it's the latter that is prevalent. You see, people are drawn to boundaries for good and bad reasons. So, it's critical that we draw them correctly and at the right depth. I am not advocating for gospel of thomas or other heretical texts.
@@paveli1181 sure, but it’s good to have boundaries that’s even what Jerome said when he named what the canon was that the boundary was “as a helmeted introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings” Then goes on to name the apocrypha. So I was wondering what did Luther exclude that Jerome didn’t 1000 years before? Genuine question because I don’t know yet either
@@Mason_O Jerome is not the only church father, and his opinion is not consistent with councils that were held during and after his time. Canon was modified as various churches had some variations on what they read during service. Eastern orthodox and Catholics have these books as part of their canon that are absent from protestant canon. Tobit Judith Baruch Sirach 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees The reason they were absent is that they were not congruent with Solas principles of the Reformation. But I would argue that they have tremendous value for life and godliness as Paul notes to Timothy, and therefore should be a part of private readings at the minimum.
@@paveli1181 I think they should be read as well but not as what Paul says to Timothy since they are not inspired since they have errors. And even Josephus if I remember correctly what I heard about him and the understanding of the early Jews is they regarded as inspired scripture the 66 books we have though numbered different. I heard that’s why why there wasn’t Jewish Targums produced to expound on the apocrypha since they all understood they weren’t scripture. They can still be read and have historical information though with errors.
*The holy Christ is born in me today.* Watch with me, angels, watch with me today. Let all God's holy Thoughts surround me, and be still with me while Heaven's Son is born. Let earthly sounds be quiet, and the sights to which I am accustomed disappear. Let Christ be welcomed where He is at home. And let Him hear the sounds He understands, and see but sights that show His Father's Love. Let Him no longer be a stranger here, for He is born again in me today. _Your Son is welcome, Father. He has come to save me from the evil self I made. He is the Self that You have given me. He is but what I really am in truth. He is the Son You love above all things. He is my Self as You created me. It is not Christ that can be crucified. Safe in Your Arms let me receive Your Son._
The OPC produced an updated edition of the Westminster Confession in 1993 called the Modern English Study Edition (MESV) which can be found online. P&R Publishing has the Westminster Shorter Catechism in Modern English by Douglas Kelly. It is a very affordable pocket size paperback. And Kevin Bidwell has done a Shorter Catechism in Modern English which is also a pocket size paperback I saw at Christianbook for under two dollars.
I do not think that the Catholic Church uses symbol in the way that you say. I think it has a much more robust view of what symbol means and does see the creeds as regulative.
I am a confessional Lutheran, I enjoyed listening to both of you, on this program, bothers, peace of the Lord
Me too
You go Carl !!
Why should I believe that any given creed or confession is an accurate representation of the faith of the apostles and not just a description of what people believe about the Bible at the time they wrote the creed? I struggled with this, considering how many Protestant creeds differ on key elements like baptism and the Eucharist.
Study a few and see which are most faithful to the bible
Come Home to the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ. I'm an adult convert from Southern Baptist.
I do not think that the Catholic Church uses symbol in the way that you say. I think it has a much more robust view of what symbol means and does see the creeds as regulative.
That is definitely a PLUS point of Liturgical worship. The content remains consistent regardless of who the "preacher" (conservative or liberal). Unlike a run of the mill evangelical or charismatic church - you are definitely at the mercy of the "preacher" who is running the show. You may not get any scripture at all - and definitely NONE of the historical creedal confessions.
This is true. Something that hadn’t crossed my mind. Thanks.
Early church fathers had a larger canon and read books that people do not read today. What Luther excluded as he thought was not useful in his day would really be useful today. Namely book of Sirach.
I heard Jerome approved of the shorter canon?
@@Mason_O@Mason_O My point is not only on where the line, is, but how deep it is.
I think it's more useful to think of the canon as a line in the sand (not an idiom) and not as a chasm. Unfortunately, it's the latter that is prevalent.
You see, people are drawn to boundaries for good and bad reasons. So, it's critical that we draw them correctly and at the right depth.
I am not advocating for gospel of thomas or other heretical texts.
@@paveli1181 sure, but it’s good to have boundaries that’s even what Jerome said when he named what the canon was that the boundary was
“as a helmeted introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings”
Then goes on to name the apocrypha. So I was wondering what did Luther exclude that Jerome didn’t 1000 years before? Genuine question because I don’t know yet either
@@Mason_O Jerome is not the only church father, and his opinion is not consistent with councils that were held during and after his time. Canon was modified as various churches had some variations on what they read during service.
Eastern orthodox and Catholics have these books as part of their canon that are absent from protestant canon.
Tobit
Judith
Baruch
Sirach
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
The reason they were absent is that they were not congruent with Solas principles of the Reformation. But I would argue that they have tremendous value for life and godliness as Paul notes to Timothy, and therefore should be a part of private readings at the minimum.
@@paveli1181 I think they should be read as well but not as what Paul says to Timothy since they are not inspired since they have errors. And even Josephus if I remember correctly what I heard about him and the understanding of the early Jews is they regarded as inspired scripture the 66 books we have though numbered different. I heard that’s why why there wasn’t Jewish Targums produced to expound on the apocrypha since they all understood they weren’t scripture. They can still be read and have historical information though with errors.
same argument can be made for liturgy, which these two don't observe.
*The holy Christ is born in me today.*
Watch with me, angels, watch with me today. Let all God's holy Thoughts surround me, and be still with me while Heaven's Son is born. Let earthly sounds be quiet, and the sights to which I am accustomed disappear. Let Christ be welcomed where He is at home. And let Him hear the sounds He understands, and see but sights that show His Father's Love. Let Him no longer be a stranger here, for He is born again in me today.
_Your Son is welcome, Father. He has come to save me from the evil self I made. He is the Self that You have given me. He is but what I really am in truth. He is the Son You love above all things. He is my Self as You created me. It is not Christ that can be crucified. Safe in Your Arms let me receive Your Son._
I find the WCF very difficult to read due to its age. We update Bible translations all the time. Let’s update the WCF.
RC Sproul has a very helpful book that breaks down the WCF into layman's terms. It's called "Truths We Confess."
The OPC produced an updated edition of the Westminster Confession in 1993 called the Modern English Study Edition (MESV) which can be found online. P&R Publishing has the Westminster Shorter Catechism in Modern English by Douglas Kelly. It is a very affordable pocket size paperback. And Kevin Bidwell has done a Shorter Catechism in Modern English which is also a pocket size paperback I saw at Christianbook for under two dollars.
First Comment!.. pin this comment please!.
I do not think that the Catholic Church uses symbol in the way that you say. I think it has a much more robust view of what symbol means and does see the creeds as regulative.