No Creed but the Bible?
927113
The Creedal Imperative by Carl R. Trueman presents a biblical, historical, theological, and practical case for creeds and confessions. Trueman is pastor of Cornerstone Presbyterian Church in Ambler, Pennsylvania, and the Paul Woolley Professor of Church History at nearby Westminster Theological Seminary. Though Trueman writes from a Calvinist (and complementarian) perspective, his argument can be appreciated by orthodox Christians from a variety of theological and ecclesiological traditions.

Trueman makes his argument against the frequently heard claim that Christians have no creed but the Bible. He points out that all Christian churches have a functional creed, even if they have not articulated it explicitly. Moreover, the Bible itself has creed-like formulations that in the first centuries of the church organically developed into formal statements such as the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed. Indeed, in some ways, those creeds are nothing but extended reflections on the biblical statement, "Jesus Christ is Lord."

If creeds express mere Christianity, which unites all orthodox Christians, confessions expound the Christian faith for specific ecclesiastical communions. Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Baptists--to take four Protestant examples--affirm the Nicene Creed, but the 39 Articles, Book of Concord, Westminster Confession, and 1689 Baptist Confession parse their respective understandings of doctrine, ecclesiology, spirituality, and ethics in detail.

In the book's concluding chapter, Trueman makes nine arguments for the usefulness of creeds and confessions:

1. All churches and all Christians have creeds and confessions.
2. Confessions delimit the power of the church.
3. Creeds and confessions offer succinct and thorough summaries of the faith.
4. They allow for appropriate discrimination between members and office-bearers.
5. They reflect the ministerial authority of the church.
6. They represent the maximum doctrinal competence that can be expected from a congregation.
7. They relativize the present.
8. They help to define one church in relation to another.
9. And they are necessary for maintaining corporate unity.

The Creedal Imperative is a profoundly countercultural tract. As Trueman notes in the first chapter, contemporary culture devalues the past, distrusts words, is antiauthoritarian, and fears exclusion. By contrast, creeds and confessions value the past, use words to communicate theological truth, embody the authority of ecclesiastical communions, and draw lines between belief and unbelief. It is difficult--if not impossible--to imagine Christianity without creeds and confessions, for they are always present, if only implicitly. Far better, it seems, to make them explicit so they can be explained, defended and subscribed to!

I am an ordained Assemblies of God minister. At the founding of my fellowship, many Pentecostals were anti-creedal. Within two years of its founding, however, the fellowship found it necessary to outline a Statement of Fundamental Truths in order to clarify what the Bible taught about God, distinguish orthodoxy from heresy, and express the doctrinal basics for inclusion in the Assemblies. The Statement follows the rough outline of the creeds (Father-Son-Spirit-eschatology), but it functions confessionally. The historical experience of my fellowship confirms much of Trueman's argument, even though there are theological and ecclesiological differences between his Presbyterianism and my Pentecostalism.

Regardless of those differences, I highly recommend The Creedal Imperative to Pentecostal readers, as well as to Christian readers who are tempted by anti-creedalism. It will challenge and inform you and, hopefully, convince you of the biblical basis and practical usefulness of creeds and confessions.
4499160
John Spong has rescinded his faith in the scriptures that provided his lifelong career only he will not admit it...so he must come up with all sorts of mental gyrations to provide an argument for his conclusions. It would be a lot easier and more honest just to say he no longer believes in the Bible and let it go as some other theologians have done. He is not alone and if you have the same experience it must all be god's will or it would be different. So whether it is the book of John or any others the same logic applies...get it????? It must all be god's will or it would be different. The argument for God's will in everything takes another book...check it out...theofatalism...<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Theofatalism-Theology-for-Agnostics-and-Atheists/dp/B00DIZ2PJI/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Theofatalism: Theology for Agnostics and Atheists</a>
213358
If you are looking for lots of platitudes on Christianity, this is the book for you.
Unfortunately it provides almost no reasoning at all to justify that any of the assertions are true.
If you want to believe in things with no evidence to support them, you will need faith.
Faith: belief that is not based on proof
1472894
Interprets the book of genesis as an allegory, and uses extra biblical sources to manufacture doctrine' . Rejects literal interpretation of scripture, unless it helps him come to his own manufactured theory. If you believe the bible, believe it is to be interpreted literally, and believe you can't add to scripture, you'll hate this book
2316197
This small book is totally Bible based--not some persons ideas ----regarding who Believers in Christ actually are based on the WORDS OF GOD.
MAN OFTEN HAS THEIR VERSION OF MANY THINGS ---GOING BACK TO LEGALISM--YOU  CANNOT DO THIS AND YOU CANNOT DO THAT---ETC.  YES THERE ARE THINGS CHRISTIANS SHOULD NOT DO--NOT WILLFULLY SIN IS ONE. THE BIBLE SAYS YOU SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE AND THIS BOOK GIVES THE SCRIPTURES THAT TRULY DO  SET US FREE..
3590980
This is only the Book of Matthew, it is NOT the Bible.  If that is the only book you need to read this is most likely your book.  Frankly I do not know anyone who only needs the book of Matthew.  The title is misleading, should be the book of Matthew, ASV Edition.
391968
If I wanted a biblical lesson I know where the church is. I was looking for an open minded explanation, not a monotheistic rant on the evils of all magic. Only two non-monotheistic religions were represented and neither have a bright reputation. All and all a let down. Btw, the 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live' verse was altered by King James when _he_ decided to go through and reorganization the bible cause _he_ feared witches. Before it said 'thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live.' So it wasn't God's word it was man's.
669308
I just finished this attempt at defense of the "Original Autographs Only" position. This pretty much sums it up--
"If the tomb of Jesus were definitely found, we would have to give up believing in Christianity." He thinks that science can tell us that God does not exist. He does not understand that the Bible has to be considered the basis of knowledge. We cannot know that it is wrong, or we have abandoned the basis for having any knowledge at all.
~
These OAOs insist that we have no final authority about what the Bible says, and that we don't need one, because all of the major doctrines are in all Bibles. But they still insist on correcting the King James, as if they know it is wrong from some higher authority, which is nothing but their preference.
539718
If Seinfeld is the show about nothing, then this is the book about nothing. Many rabbit trails, no real evidence for anything. I wondered as I was reading if Baigent has ever carefully read the New Testament, especially the Gospels. A quote from page 260: "But it is not just the scrolls that provide us with reasons for an alternative view: even the Gospels themselves fail to support the theology codified at Nicaea. Did Jesus really put forward a claim to be God? It seems not. In a remarkable admission, Joseph Fitzmyer avers, 'The Gospels have not so presented that claim.'"

  Jesus' claim to be God ("I and the Father are one" and many, many other verses) is clear throughout the Gospels. Just read them! And He was crucified BECAUSE HE CLAIMED TO BE GOD, which was blasphemy to the Jews. Jesus, Paul, the Apostles all spoke in the temple continually, and it would have been easy to know what they believed and said. They were out in public pronouncing their faith all the time.

  Here are some questions for Baigent: 1)If the resurrection did not occur, why does history show that 11 of the 12 apostles died martyr's deaths for the belief in the risen Christ? 2) What about the biblical claim that the resurrected Christ appeared to some 500 people, and ascended into heaven? (I Corinthians 15:6, Paul states as he writes this that many who saw Jesus resurrected were still alive!)3) What about the fact that the New Testament is made up of living letters (epistles) that were shared with all the churches? How would the church continue if there were no resurrected Christ, yet Paul continued to preach that there was? 4) Why does Jesus in the Gospels ask John to take care of His mother, but shows no concern for Mary Magdalene? 5)Why are the Gospels sometimes used as evidence in "The Jesus Papers", and other times referred to as unreliable?

  I would challenge anyone to read this book and then "The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell, and see which book truly presents more 'evidence' and 'history.'
822267
This is a book that every Christian should read and interact with, even if you do not agree with it in totality

As a person who went through years of theological training (5 years of Greek, 2 years of Hebrew), culminating in a ThM from Dallas Seminary, I thoroughly get David Bercot's point.  The study of theology was interesting to a point, but ultimately I found it to be quite empty.  In doing careful study and teaching of the book of Acts and now teaching and studying Matthew, I have come to the conclusion that there is precious little common ground between the teachings and practice of Jesus and the teaching and practice of the contemporary church.

Kudos to the author for standing up and making this point.  Is he the only one that sees the problem?  Can everyone be that blind?  Or is it simply much easier for the career theologians and religionists to simply "go along to get along."  Might that be the wide path that leads to destruction?  But I digress . . .

The author's key issue is right on target.  Instead of finding meaning in putting the basic teachings of Jesus into practice, these "scholars" have tried to find meaning and significance in drawing finer and finer lines of theology, as if theology is an end to itself.  Theologians tend to speak without basis and tend to like to stay with the herd.  Conservatives like to decry the lack of free expression in the liberal institutions of learning, but the truth is that political correctness has become an absolute art form within the institutional church and its related organizations and denominations.

It is difficult to be the one who stands up and points out how far the church has strayed from the original teachings of Jesus.  There is a definite price to be paid for not going along with the crowd.

One area where I was not satisfied was the explanation of the relationship between fruit/works and salvation, and truly this is a difficult area to explain.  The author makes it sound as if we are going to be ultimately judged by our works, and there are verses to demonstrate this point, but ultimately we are all unworthy and fall short as the Bible also teaches very clearly.  In the end, we are only saved by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ, his Son.  The evidence of fruit is simply demonstrative of a changed life, and there will be varying levels of fruit.  It is the 'no fruit' life that is condemned.

I am also left with questions of "what now?"  What do we do with this knowledge?  What does a true New Testament church look like?  Where do we go from here?  Maybe one of his other books will delve into this in greater detail.  I hope so.  I am reading the other books now.

God bless you Mr. Bercot for the courage to speak the truth.
3350748
Not only has Creed not changed their style since they've began their career, they've also careened headlong into horrible, god-fearing christian garbage.  Take a bit of advice, you can get the same drivel from a 2 hour sermon.  Try a band who isn't kissing ... for the afterlife, like anyone who respects their fame.
1833498
Pay special attention to lofty but empty claim of sola scriptura, yet the final appeal is always to "logic."  THE TRINITY says:  "We will be very candid with our readers--if it is not biblical we do not want it, even if the vast majority of authorities in the religious world endorse it (including Adventist pioneers and the theologians of 'Babylon')."  (The Trinity pg. 11)  "The only way for the pioneers in their context to effectively separate Scripture from tradition was to abandon every doctrine not clearly supported from the Bible alone.  Thus they initially rejected the traditional doctrine of the Trinity, which clearly contained elements not evident in Scripture."  (The Trinity pg. 202)  "To whom should we direct our petitions and adoration in personal devotions and corporate worship?...But what about direct prayer to the Holy Spirit?  While we have no clear example of or direct command to pray to the Spirit in Scripture, doing so does have, in principle, some implicit biblical support.  If the Spirit is indeed divine and personal and He interacts in all sorts of direct personal ways (bringing conviction, healing, transforming grace, granting gifts, etc.), it only seems logical that God's people can pray directly to and worship the Holy Spirit..."In sum--if the persons of the Godhead are truly one in nature, character, and purpose, then it seems only logical and practical to address appropriate petitions and praises to any one of the heavenly Trio at any given time and situation." (The Trinity pg. 272, 273 emphasis supplied).
Is it really possible to claim strict Biblical "proof" of the modern Adventist version of the Trinity doctrine, while at the same time candidly admitting there is "no example of" anyone in the bible ever praying to or worshipping the Holy Spirit? Nor, is there any "direct command" anywhere in Scripture that we should worship or pray to the Holy Spirit! In other words no one in the entire Bible ever worshiped or prayed to the Holy Spirit, but we are all told to do it anyway! For many people, praying to and worshipping the Holy Spirit "seems logical and practical." Yet, praying to Mary and worshipping dead saints seems very logical and practical for over a billion people. Now, everyone is entitled to their own belief or opinion, but why try to cram this new speculative opinion about the Trinity down our throats? The practical definition of dogmatic dogmatism is when Pastors are fired, and laypersons disfellowshipped from Adventist churches because of variant interpretations of the "Trinity" as defined by the 28 Fundamental beliefs. If Adventist's are not required to strictly adhere to only one interpretation of the Trinity doctrine, then why make it a test of fellowship in the first place? In fact, the greatest irony of all is that "The Trinity" book belittles the early Adventist pioneer's non-trinitarian  views while praising the development of modern Adventist Trinitarianism as the only Biblical and legitimate form of the doctrine. Did you catch that? Modern Adventism claims that all Christian Trinitarian creeds contain elements of "Greek philosophy," unbiblical speculation and human tradition. Therefore, modern Adventism cannot subscribe or endorse ANY Christian Trinity creed, and by definition, would be classified as non-Trinitarian by them all. Now that's irony. Even though modern Adventism has repudiated the non-trinitarian teachings of her founding fathers and evolved its own unique "Trinitarian" perspective, the Adventist church has always been non-Trinitarian.
702698
i bought this book to read and saw this statement,"  There are several other universally accepted truths that Jesus did not teach anywhere, such as the doctrine that there is only one God." and it goes on and on.

the truth is, is that Jesus DID teach that there is only one God.  In fact, that is what the whole bible teaches.  I do not know where David Intone-Brewer came up with this, but what David is saying is not the real truth of what the Bible and/or Jesus actually says.
3546515
This "Bible" is done by an atheist!!!!  PLEASE check it out before giving it to any kids! Sams club has already pulled it because of the graphic content. It's cute because it is legos, but the message of the Bible is NOT there! however, the horrible stories from the Bible are and are very graphic.
4051783
I didn't see anywhere it said that this book is based on Christian religion and Bible. It is under "new thought" category but what Christianity has to do with a new thought? Sent it back.
641436
I read this book quite awhile back before all the buzz about it. I was not impressed with the storyline and hope no one is misled into trying to accept was the author cites as facts and use them for the purpose of embellishing your views of Christ and the Gospel. Consider this --> The Bible is intended to be "stand-alone" and "infallible" (and also contains severe warnings about "adding to or subtracting from it".) These are basic tenents of Christianity. If these tenets are NOT held to be true then it stands to reason that it would be silly to place your faith and eternal destiny in the Bible and Christianity. BUT, if they are held to be true then it logically follows that to try and "explore ones faith" by accepting the baseless (and insulting) views about Jesus which the author espouses would defy sound reasoning and be 100 percent CONTRADICTORY... i.e. How can the author say it should help people to "explore their faith" when it is directly contradictory to what their manual of faith (the Bible)says. (To assert that Jesus started a family that would later be involved in orgies!?!? COME ON!!!! Really and truly what is happening here is no different than what happened in the garden of Eden. Satan questions God's Word and will use every lie and trick to get people sidetracked into believing ridiculous things. If you want a good story, look elsewhere; if you want to explore your faith, then read the Bible or a book that helps to understand (not undermine/insult) its teachings. See my other reviews for some awesome books that will help you increase your faith.
1935968
There are lots of good and biblical principles in this book.  What I find concerning is that it's all "law" and no grace or gospel.  Jesus isn't mentioned, and there's no gospel based hope to be found in it.  If we only expose our kids to material like this, they will grow up thinking that being a Christian consists of being polite and behaving well.