Dogmatic Rejection of Dogma; Creeds of creedlessness



Rebloggged from Insight Scoop

This dogmatic denunciation of dogma sponsored by a disorganized religious organization

A not-so-friendly Friends minister admits what it really means when people repeat the mindless, empty, and logic-challenged refrain: “I’m not into organized religion”:

I have a “notion” that Anne Rice isn’t “going it alone,” but that she has had it with institutions that have replaced the Real Spirit of Christ with trappings of power and privilege and the heavy yoke of a creedalism that burdens one generation with the often discredited truth of previous ones. And if she is anything like the many students with whom I work and learn – who would describe themselves as deeply spiritual but not religious in the conventional sense – then she is in good company. Let’s just hope they don’t join together, form a “Church,” and develop a dogma that, itself, will one day run counter to the fresh springs of the Spirit of Christ.

Interpretation: We really dislike the Catholic Church.

Glad we cleared that up.

He also says:

Nonconformist and radical reform traditions such as Friends have sought in their beginnings to bypass the accretions of the ages and return to “basic Christianity,” the faith of the first disciples – what some would call “Gospel Christianity.” The trouble is, the Christian scriptures themselves, describing the nature of that earliest form of the faith, are already products of the development of a “Church,” of a set of dogmas and practices that developed in the decades after Jesus walked the earth. Quakers have historically sought to address this problem by appealing to the “Spirit of Christ” directly. Without creed, an ordained clergy, or a ritual other than centered, expectant waiting on the Spirit of Christ in worship, Friends appeal to their Inward Teacher, the Real Presence within, to Jesus Christ in all offices of prophet, priest, redeemer, saviour, and Lord.

So…the “non-organized religion” (so to speak) of Quakerism (1) has a “tradition,” (2) possesses a set of dogmas and doctrines especially aimed at denouncing dogmas and doctrines, (3) touts a historical lineage of thought and teaching, and (4) holds to a creedless creed outlining adherence to belief in “the Spirit of Christ” and an “appeal to their Inward Teacher, the Real Presence within…”

Glad we cleared that up.

One Response

  1. Dear whoever may be concerned:

    I do agree with much of the conclusion mentioned above. Concerning the “Interpretation” above, I agree that they must not like the Catholic “Church”, but also, they must not like the True church either, as the true church is called to follow, to the best of their ability, the organization that God ordained and teaches in the Holy Bible. First, we have Christ as our head and only hierarchy over the entire church, Whom we follow by following His last will and testament, the New Testament of the Holy Bible. Over each individual congregation, as is possible, we have the establishment of a biblically qualified plurality of bishops (elders) overseeing each congregation, biblically qualified deacons charged with a specific responsibility, and biblically authorized evangelists to teach, encourage, correct, and if needs be to rebuke. These lead by example, by being servants, and by earnestly contending for the faith, once and for all delivered to the saints. Christ definitely established an organization and headship arrangement within each congregation of His church. However, He did not establish a lasting hierarchy over the congregations. The authority over multiple congregations, enjoyed by the Apostles who had been eye and ear witnesses of Christ’s earthly ministry, death, burial, and resurrection, passed with them.

    Of the last four points, I think that I would say:

    1. Christ mentioned the Creed of men as being vain and of making the word of God of none effect. We must hold to the Scriptures as Christ and the Apostles affirm. Catholicism and other religions claim to hold to the Holy Bible, however, where the two disagree, they invariably hold to their “Traditions” making the Word of God of none effect.

    2. Your point two effectively points out an absurdity.

    3. Concerning this, the only historical lineage one truly needs is the one necessary to come into contact with God’s Word that one may know and obey the gospel. The seed of the Kingdom must be sown in ones heart; if it is received in “good soil” it will sprout up and produce fruit. This one will be added by God to His church. No lineage of bloodline or “ordination” is required as Christ said,

    “31… If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

    32And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free (John 8: 31-32; KJV).”

    and again,

    “14Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you (John 15: 14; KJV).”

    4. The only creed we need is that Which God breathed, the Holy Scriptures. Men wrote the books of creeds, traditions and catechisms of the various denominations. To my knowledge, no man, even within those various denominations, including Roman Catholicism, has ever claimed that these are Holy Scriptures. Therefore, they admit that God did not breathe them. The Scriptures, which God says are breathed by Him, are profitable for doctrine for reproof, for correction in righteousness, THAT THE MAN OF GOD MAY BE COMPLETE, THOROUGHLY EQUIPPED UNTO EVERY GOOD WORK (2 Timothy 3: 16-17). If one claims that a creed book or book of church traditions, or a catechism is necessary in order to avoid being misled, they do indeed deny the above-mentioned passage of Scripture, which God certainly did breathe.

    If they are correct, then it would have been better for God to have never given His Scriptures, because they only serve to create confusion, which the creed book, the book of traditions, or the catechisms written by men must clear up. He should have simply asked the men who authored those books to write those books instead of Him writing His Holy Scriptures.

    Furthermore, if one pays close attention, one may easily see a number of places where the creed books, the books of church traditions, and the catechisms are in direct conflict with the Scriptures, such as in 1 Timothy 3: 1-2 and 4: 1-5, or Jeremiah 31: 31-34, or Mark 16: 15-16, or Hebrews 6: 4-6, etc. Whenever this situation occurs, these so-called “churches” invariably hold to their creeds and traditions, making the Word of God of none effect.

    Please seriously consider this. Much more could be said.

    Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: