The SBC and the Nicene Creed (feat. Malcolm Yarnell & Steve McKinion)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 окт 2024
- Matt Emerson and Luke Stamps chat with guests Malcolm Yarnell and Steve McKinion about their upcoming resolution to add the Nicene Creed to the Baptist Faith and Message at the SBC Annual Meeting.
![CHILE vs. BRASIL [1-2] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 9](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5ObJt_71AYc/mqdefault.jpg)
Can you guys start putting your podcasts on Spotify? I've been looking for great podcasts to listen there!
If your church thinks the Nicene Creed isn"t factual then you dont hold Christian doctrine.
Where can we go to contribute to Dr. McKinion's book fund? We need to help him fill up those shelves!
The Nicene Creed was written before there was a standard canon that we call the Bible today. During the first six centuries different church fathers had different canons. They had no reference point to the Masoretic text which became the Protestant canon. The Bible comes out of the holy tradition of liturgical worship. One of the biggest determining factors for determining if a book was canonical was if it came from the lectionaries which were the daily reading in the liturgy of the Orthodox Church during the period of the Byzantine empire.
The Cappadocians wrote the Nicene Creed. They did not believe in the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. They believed in one lord, one faith, and one baptism for the remission of sins. The church they belonged to was the Orthodox Church. They were not Baptist. You don't have to take my word for it. Go read the canons of Nicea and you will see that they were not Protestants. Protestants have absolutely no continuity with the men who wrote the Creed. When Protestants read the Creed, they are reading the Roman Catholic Version of the Creed. Which was changed to teach Filioque. The Cappadocians did not teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Filioque was a big reason why the Eastern Church split from the West in 1054 AD.
When a Protestant reads the Nicene Creed, he is not reading it with the meaning that the Cappadocians Church Fathers intended. They taught the Monarchy of the Father. The eternal generation of the Son. And the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father. They believed that the Father is the source and fount of the Godhead. They believed that the three Persons were in a hierarchical economic relationship with one another. The Son and the Spirit receive their eternal existence from the hypostasis of the Father who is the arche of Triadic unity. They believed that the ontological relationship was equal between the three Persons because all three persons share the same divine nature. The Father is the Father because he begets a Son eternally. The Son is the Son because he eternally exists sharing the same eternal nature from the Father. In the same way the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. For this reason, all the activities of God are Triadic. That is why the Creed says "I believe in one God the Father" The Father is God because the other two persons receive their eternal existence from the Father.
A Protestant reads the Nicene Creed like a liberal reads the Constitution. Liberals intentionally read the Constitution ignoring the original intent of the men who wrote the founding documents of the United States. In the same way Protestants ignore the Cappadocian's and their writing and instead have invented a Unitarian Trinity that is ahistorical. It's not a accident that Protestantism produced Unitarianism. It is a direct consequence of rejecting the historical testimony of the men who wrote the Creed. So, when a Protestant reads the Nicene Creed he is engaging in spiritual delusion. Because the Protestant God is not the same God defined in the Creed. Protestants have a false conception of the Trinity and they don't even know it.
Shouldn't churches have an option in affirming the Nicene Creed. What will happen to those SBC churches that want to remain faithful to Scripture alone, and not creeds ar any other outside literature? Many SBC churches have gone away from Scripture, this just adds fuel to that fire.
The creed existed exactly to affirm what Christians believed or did not believe. Shouldn't the creed also have stated "we affirm the bible alone is the sole highest authority " any thoughts why that isn't in the nicean creed?
@@dman7668 Have you read the Nicene or Apostle's Creed? It's pretty basic stuff. I'm mean really basic.
The reason the Bible as the highest authority is not in the Creed is because there was no bible around at the time. The first official gathering of books to be authorized to be read during the Liturgy (Mass) was at the Council of Rome in 382AD.
Because they predate Scripture. Before the canon of Scripture was finalized giving us the Bible we know today, creeds existed as a way to fight heresy and summarize basic Christian theology mostly surrounding christology since the heresy of that day was targeting the person of Christ. Historically speaking creeds were very important for the early church.
The Creed is also a reminder of our baptismal vows ie. What we professed to believe at baptism. Justin Martyr makes a point of this when he writes in 155 AD ' those who confess to believe what we believe are brought to where there is water and they are regenerated as we were regenerated.' But you are also correct that the creed was a rebuttal of different heresies. One heresy was a Universalist type belief that Christ died for ALL creatures including the fallen angels thus the line 'For us men and for our salvation He came down to earth...'
Baptism is "an external expression of an internal reality." Yes, that is exactly the Catholic teaching. 👏👏
It's not just Catholic teaching, it most of protestant Christianity also. So I don't see why it's so controversial.
@@dman7668 Yep, but he was specifically asked to explain how the Baptist view differs from the Catholic view. "Unlike the Catholics, Baptists believe [goes on to explain what the Catholic Catechism teaches, including the comparison to the sacrament of marriage]."
"This sacrament is also called 'the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit,' for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one 'can enter the Kingdom of God.'" That is from the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, Part 2, Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 1. The difference is the phrase "and actually brings about." Roman Catholics hold that Baptism is far more than an external expression of internal reality, though it includes that; it actually infuses baptismal grace, which, for example, brings about forgiveness for original sin. Way different than the traditional Baptist view of baptism.
Psalm 2 is about an anointed, human king of Israel. The anointing happens in time, not eternity. The “begottenness” occurred on that in-time anointing day.
The title “son” of God refers to the king of Israel (see 2 Samuel 7:12-14; John 1:49). Similarly, Israel is referred to as God’s “son” (Exodus 4:22-23; Hosea 11:1).
This passage means something very specific, and it can only ever mean what it meant to the original audience. One can recognize that this verse was applied to Jesus as king of Israel, but one cannot take his divinity, read that back into Psalm 2, and then assert an analogy of “eternal generation” from it. That is poor hermeneutics, and truly does lend itself to “adoptionist” language because adoption as king is exactly what is occurring in Psalm 2.
I notice this video glosses over the fact that American Baptists in particular and Southern Baptists in general have NOT historically been in favor of affirming the Nicene Creed in its entirety. In fact, the only historic Southern Baptist quoted in this video was B.H. Carroll, who would have never supported this motion. While Southern Baptists can confess the Deity of Christ and the nature of the Trinity, we have historically rejected the poor ecclesiology in the second paragraph of the Nicene Creed.
Yes and we have done so against historical Christianity. Everyone else is affirming baptismal regeneration. Lutherans, heck even mormons. We almost looked like Jehovahs witnesses not doing so.
Many dispensational people deny one return... Many baptists deny baptism for the remission of sins...
It's weird how the Church affirmed this "poor Ecclesiastical " view of baptism without so much as a peep out of the Baptist church for the first like 1700yrs of Christianity. 🙄🤷
Both good points.
Ugh....the filioque...John 15 does not say the Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. Likewise there is zero exegetical warrant to make that claim based on that passage. Those that want to SBC to adopt this creed need to be clear will not be adopting the Nicene Creex, but the Latin Creed not agreed to by the whole church.
Regarding the Holy Trinity, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one and same with respect to Substance, that is Divine. In terms of relationship, the Father is never sent nor proceeds. The Son (Christ) is said to be sent by the Father (c.f. John 5:33; 6:38-39; 7:28; Galatians 4:6). The Holy Spirit is also said to be sent by the Father in the NT (e.g., John 14:26; Galatians 4:6). However, a reading of these same texts will indicate that both the Father and Son are said to send the Holy Spirit. Catholic Theologians and Biblical scholars note that while there is no formal text stating the Holy Spirit proceeds from Christ, John 16:14-16 says that the Holy Spirit will take mine (Christ's) and declare it to you. All the Father has is mine (Christ) thus what is Christ's will be declared to the Apostles (hence the Church) by the Holy Spirit. Numerous NT texts speak of the Holy Spirit as being the Spirit of the Son/The Lord/Christ, etc (1 Peter 1:11, Acts 16:7; 2 Cor 3:17).
So say the Son his not involved in the procession of the Holy Spirit has serious Trinitarian problems and splits the Father and Son into 2 distinct agents. There are 2 complimentary views of procession from the Catholic perspective, both orthodox. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son (filioque) or the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (per filium).
So I am a Catholic and since Baptist have historically not studied or used Creeds, I think it is from my view lots of misunderstanding on how my Church, the Catholic Church and the early Latin/Western Church Fathers analyzed the scriptures and formulated the filioque.
Cheers
I was happy to see this resolution today, but cringed when I heard them use the Filoque.
I'm thinking this is one of those matters than can be misconstrued. I'm thinking the answer is more both/and instead of either/or. Galatians 4:6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” Joined to other 'from the Father' verses, I see the both/and.
I see how some can see the Father line verses and conclude it alone is true.
I can see the same conclusion when Oneness Pentecostals read 'baptize in the name of Jesus' and use that verse to drop Jesus' words in the Great Commision. That's an either/or reading. A both/and reading helps clarify the filioque for me.
In addition, the Church has spoken on the matter even though it does not consider the clause to be in stone since the church only viewed it's inclusion necessary to combat Arianism.
Just my 2-cents. God bless.
The Nicene Creed is a teaching document. It is sound doctrine and was created to address heresies that existed in the church. The SBC today is not without churches that old heretical beliefs.
So what does this mean to a person who is saved but not baptized?
I would advice baptism with a sincere intent and using the Trinitarian formula. Scripture and the church considers it the normative requirement for salvation. Baptism is where the gift of the Holy Spirit is first infused. God bless
They aren't saved, Baptism saves. For 1,500 years this was the teaching of the Church.
They are in serious error and have not received the sign of the covenant
@@bigtobacco1098 what's that even mean? What purpose does receiving a sign mean?
@@WilliamFAlmeida that you are in the visible church...
I think it’s funny that y’all bring up 1 Tim 3:16 because it starts in the Standard Sacred Text “God was manifested in the flesh” (which is NOT the father!) lol Bahahaha so you prolly reject the traditional and historical reading and reject Preservation and use a critical version “he was manifested”. Shane on you. That is dishonest
Acts 2:38 repentance is for the remission of sins.
God Himself¹ established His Holy Church.
The One², Holy, Catholic (Universal), and Apostolic Church is implied in Proverbs 9:1.Wisdom (¹Founder), the House (Holy Church), and the Seven Pillars (7 Holy Sacraments).
The Nicene Creed has long been established and professed by the universal* Church.
* Universal means Catholic.
² One means True. Even in Logical Maths, 1 = True.
Be humble and it will be much easier to come back to the Holy Church. Get back to the fold of the true Holy Church. Amen.
By the 5 comments it seems the Baptists don't really agree with the Nocene creed. Perhaps the teachers at the seminary do, but somehow it is lost in teaching.
The universal church or the catholic (not Catholic) church.
The Baptism you believe in isn't the same baptism as many Baptists seem to believe. Especially when you look to the thief on the cross and because Jesus said he will be with Jesus in heaven, Baptism isn't required.. first, this is a golden ticket given to one person. It shows you how fast the Holy Spirot can change someone from unbelief to believing. Jesus did not give us Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and Baptism now saves us, until after he rose from the dead. When Jesus Ascended into heaven, he told us to baptize all nations in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
The Baptism of John the baptizer, was one of Repentance as Paul says in Acts 19.
To me the Baptists believe all but the Baptism saves for the forgiveness of sins. It just isn't taught. Otherwise I've seen most Baptists to believe the rest. But perhaps per the comments, confusion should be avoided with... We Believe in something the scripture says..
We hear folks always wanting to give the example of the good thief on the cross, who's name was Dismas, as having never been baptized. The NT nor church hx/tradition make any reference to Him being baptized or not. Fact is, we do not know. All we can do is guess or assert.
@billlee2194 I'm not sure why the thief on the cross is any example as to why a Christian denomination would deny Baptism the Lord commanded us to do at his Ascension. Then put stipulations on what Baptism does and doesn't do. So sad.
@@fuzzyaomeba2844 just to clarify, I do believe Jesus commanded baptism. I also believe it is the New Birth, therefore, it is necessary for one to enter the Kingdom of God. However, even though the church teaches it is the 'Normative' means of salvation, God Himself is not bound by the sacraments hence the good thief on the cross ie. if he was, in fact, never baptized :). Hope this helps.
@billlee2194 as some say, it's necessary but not absolutely necessary. Yes it makes sense.
No. Jesus is not caused. Baptism is not for remission. Creeds have no authority.
If you want a creed go somewhere else
The Second Person of the Trinity being a begotten God is the problem with the Nicene Creed. Psalm 2:7 says “I will declare… ‘You are my Son, today I have become your Father’”. This indicates he will be his father at the incarnation, as Luke 1:32, 35 tells us. Jesus unlike us is Virgin born and is not adopted but is the one and only Son (John 1:14,18). When we dogmatize speculations about God, we violate the doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God. That the First Person is called the Father and Second is called Son ultimately tells us nothing of their eternal relations just as the Third Person being called The Holy Spirit does NOT mean that the First and Second are eternally Unholy Spirits nor Holy Incarnated Beings.