Reformed Thomist
Puritan Board Sophomore
Do the ecumenical creeds of the Church -- the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed -- provide a standard for a basic Christian orthodoxy? Do Christians need to affirm more (or, for that matter, less) than what is contained in these creeds to be orthodox Christians? When does adding to these creedal truths negate Christian orthodoxy?
The underlying issue, as you may suspect, is the status of the Roman Catholic Church, or Roman Catholics, in Christendom. The RCC affirms (or claims to affirm) the truths contained in the ecumenical creeds -- Roman Catholics recite them throughout the liturgical year. She teaches quite a bit more than what is contained in them with regard to the faith, as do the vast majority of Protestant churches, and as we all know the ongoing Protestant beef with the RCC is that she has added things which are plainly heterodox (sacerdotalism, Mariolatry, effective 'Sola Magisteria', papal infallibility, etc.). The general Protestant position, as I see it, is that these additions of the RCC have negated a basic Christian orthodoxy which would otherwise be there. Is this correct?
We as Reformed Christians and conservative evangelicals generally have a tendency to throw the RCC and Roman Catholics in the same camp as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Is this fair? The RCC, despite all of its false and spiritually dangerous teachings and practices, appears to be orthodox on all of those issues which cults like the LDS and the Watchtower are not. Mormons and Jevovah's Witnesses reject the fundamental truths of the Christian creeds; Roman Catholics do not (even if their 'extra-creedal' teachings make their creedal affirmations problematic). In light of this, would it not be more reasonable to label the RCC a Christian communion with serious doctrinal problems rather than a non-Christian/anti-Christian/heretical communion?
I know that this post is a bit scatterbrained... I'm just looking for responses from my Reformed brothers, whom I increasingly feel are the only ones I can trust regarding these kinds of things, on this broad topic which has been swimming around in my mind.
Thanks.
The underlying issue, as you may suspect, is the status of the Roman Catholic Church, or Roman Catholics, in Christendom. The RCC affirms (or claims to affirm) the truths contained in the ecumenical creeds -- Roman Catholics recite them throughout the liturgical year. She teaches quite a bit more than what is contained in them with regard to the faith, as do the vast majority of Protestant churches, and as we all know the ongoing Protestant beef with the RCC is that she has added things which are plainly heterodox (sacerdotalism, Mariolatry, effective 'Sola Magisteria', papal infallibility, etc.). The general Protestant position, as I see it, is that these additions of the RCC have negated a basic Christian orthodoxy which would otherwise be there. Is this correct?
We as Reformed Christians and conservative evangelicals generally have a tendency to throw the RCC and Roman Catholics in the same camp as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Is this fair? The RCC, despite all of its false and spiritually dangerous teachings and practices, appears to be orthodox on all of those issues which cults like the LDS and the Watchtower are not. Mormons and Jevovah's Witnesses reject the fundamental truths of the Christian creeds; Roman Catholics do not (even if their 'extra-creedal' teachings make their creedal affirmations problematic). In light of this, would it not be more reasonable to label the RCC a Christian communion with serious doctrinal problems rather than a non-Christian/anti-Christian/heretical communion?
I know that this post is a bit scatterbrained... I'm just looking for responses from my Reformed brothers, whom I increasingly feel are the only ones I can trust regarding these kinds of things, on this broad topic which has been swimming around in my mind.
Thanks.
Last edited: