How many people here believe in orthodox/credal Christianity?

I’ve been noticing for a while that it seems like only a very small number of people here nowadays seem to believe in orthodox/traditional or credal (Nicene/Apostle’s/Athanasian/etc. Creed) Christianity. How many of us are there? Not that people have to believe this to be nice people or anything, but I feel like what used to be a lot more people who did on the Ship have been reduced to a tiny handful. Is this correct? Does anyone know what happened or why? (Obviously some older people have sadly passed away.)
«13

Comments

  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    I don't know that the proportion of theologically orthodox posters is lower than it was.
    I personally believe what is taught in the Nicene Creed. (There are things that many Christians would consider orthodox that I don't believe, but they're not in the Nicene Creed.)
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    I'd regard myself as pretty orthodox. I'm Church of England, middle to low.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited April 12
    It's not that I think the creeds are wrong (although I really hope the opening the Athanasius one is) - I simply don't know if they're true, or any other set of beliefs to be honest. I struggle to see how you can know, to be honest.
  • NicoleMRNicoleMR Shipmate
    Sorry, I've pretty much left any type of Christianity now, even the somewhat unorthodox version I used to have.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    It's not that I think the creeds are wrong (although I really hope the opening the Athanasius one is) - I simply don't know if they're true, or any other set of beliefs to be honest. I struggle to see how you can know, to be honest.

    This. I now regard myself as 'respectfully agnostic', if that makes any sense.
  • I'm an orthodox credal Christian of the Lutheran variety.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    I’m a member of a generally Evangelical church, but I’m not in its mainstream. My Roman Catholic then (low) C of E background puts me solidly in Nicean/Apostle’s Creed territory though. I find the standard scripted creeds are a useful summary.
  • I've never been a credal Christian, and none of congregations I've joined have used the creeds, even the Uniting Church in Australia which has them included in its Basis of Union. It seems to me that few people understand the creeds and recite them more as a badge of belonging.

    More important to me is communities and individuals living out loving God and being a good neighbour. With apologies to Rabbi Hillel, the rest of the Bible is commentary, giving insight and raising questions to consider for the life of our community and individually.

    As a chaplain I value inclusivity and am disappointed with Christianities that are judgemental and exclusive.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    I’m from an evangelical nonconformist background so in a sense I was brought up to believe that was the right stuff. I still worship in that community. But in terms of personal belief I’m orthodox with a small “o”. I can recite the creeds and say “Amen”. Not just because they summarise the faith of the church. They are my faith.

    Why the small “o”? Well, I remain a nonconformist when it comes to the visible church. I think the total membership of the holy, catholic and apostolic church is in the end known perfectly only to God. My ecumenism comes from having found Christians everywhere, across high, low and medium denominations. My finding may be fallible, but I’m sure God knows better!
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    For me, the Creeds are historical statements of faith. They have long acted as guard rails for basic statements of the catholic (ie universal faith). I am particular pleased to see many denominations who confess the Nicene Faith returning to the original language--without the Filioque clause.

    At the same time, I feel we do need to develop more contemporize the statement of faith. One that I like is The New Creed that was developed by the United Church of Canada.

    Yes, I go to a credal denomination.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    I used to be fairly orthodox insofar as I could say the creeds without crossing my fingers, but I am no longer a Christian.
  • Add me to your list of those who hold to the Creeds.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    I can affirm the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds without crossing my fingers. I demure somewhat on Athanasius as I don't accept that people will be condemned to hell for not believing precisely the right things about the trinity.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    I’m from an evangelical nonconformist background so in a sense I was brought up to believe that was the right stuff. I still worship in that community. But in terms of personal belief I’m orthodox with a small “o”. I can recite the creeds and say “Amen”. Not just because they summarise the faith of the church. They are my faith.

    Why the small “o”? Well, I remain a nonconformist when it comes to the visible church. I think the total membership of the holy, catholic and apostolic church is in the end known perfectly only to God. My ecumenism comes from having found Christians everywhere, across high, low and medium denominations. My finding may be fallible, but I’m sure God knows better!

    Same here, though my original background was Anglican. The tradition I'm now in has always eschewed formal creeds although (a) I do sometimes use them when leading worship and (b) some Baptist churches (not ours!) have in recent years adopted detailed Statements of Faith, far longer than the historic creeds.
  • I'm curious how many (here, in general) can look through the historic creeds and not find anything objectionable. So they are not just consenting to (for example) the description of the historic faith or that they belong to this faith even if currently they might not be too sure about it. By that I mean accept what is written without qualification.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    I’m an orthodox credal Christian.

    By the way do you mean credal in the sense ‘does use and assent to the creeds’ or ‘does assent to the creeds, even though not using them in public worship’?
  • For me it is almost the definition of things I don't believe in. I don't believe in a personal deity. I don't believe in a bodily resurrection. I don't believe in human asexual reproduction. I don't believe in miracles.

    I am unsure about whether there is a deity, if there is one it seems he only has a passing interest in humanity.

    I would like to believe in judgment and accountability.
  • SipechSipech Shipmate
    I would describe myself, somewhat Douglas Adams-esque, as "mostly orthodox". I don't see the creeds as defining orthodoxy, though. They are nearly always historical outputs of disputes at the time, so serve to help define some boundaries, but without being the be-all and end-all.
    The "mostly" comes from the fact that I am agnostic about the historicity of the virgin birth.

    I grew up in an FIEC baptist church but spent most of my adult life in the Ichthus network. Though since I moved home 7 years ago, I haven't found a church to call home. Did attend one online during lockdown but then they showed their highly conservative colours, whereas most of the other churches I looked at were more up front about it.
  • For me it is almost the definition of things I don't believe in. I don't believe in a personal deity. I don't believe in a bodily resurrection. I don't believe in human asexual reproduction. I don't believe in miracles.

    I am unsure about whether there is a deity, if there is one it seems he only has a passing interest in humanity.

    I would like to believe in judgment and accountability.

    You might like this

    https://gordonatkinson.net/lent/my-seen-creed
  • For me it is almost the definition of things I don't believe in. I don't believe in a personal deity. I don't believe in a bodily resurrection. I don't believe in human asexual reproduction. I don't believe in miracles.

    I am unsure about whether there is a deity, if there is one it seems he only has a passing interest in humanity.

    I would like to believe in judgment and accountability.

    You might like this

    https://gordonatkinson.net/lent/my-seen-creed

    Not sure why you've tagged me in that, I can't make head nor tail of the link.

    I would rather this thread was not about my unbelief, I am more interested in understanding more about the kinds of beliefs of believers.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    For me it is almost the definition of things I don't believe in. I don't believe in a personal deity. I don't believe in a bodily resurrection. I don't believe in human asexual reproduction. I don't believe in miracles.

    I am unsure about whether there is a deity, if there is one it seems he only has a passing interest in humanity.

    I would like to believe in judgment and accountability.

    You might like this

    https://gordonatkinson.net/lent/my-seen-creed

    There's also this from Not The Nine O'Clock News. The last line remains a bit too topical:
    https://youtu.be/IUQcCvX2MKk?si=8gSE3Vx5zCH_UErB
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    I hope that the broad thrust of Christianity is true - that redemption is possible and that we continue when our bodies stop functioning. I suspect that the agreed statements in the creeds are on one level historical attempts to explain things that are just not real, and on another level peace treaties between different groups of churchmen. I hope the underlying thrust of Christianity in true, but I dont actually assent to many of the detailed doctrines.
  • ChastMastrChastMastr Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    I’m an orthodox credal Christian.

    By the way do you mean credal in the sense ‘does use and assent to the creeds’ or ‘does assent to the creeds, even though not using them in public worship’?

    Assent to, whether in public worship or not. Believe to be true.
  • ChastMastrChastMastr Shipmate
    For me it is almost the definition of things I don't believe in. I don't believe in a personal deity. I don't believe in a bodily resurrection. I don't believe in human asexual reproduction. I don't believe in miracles.

    I am unsure about whether there is a deity, if there is one it seems he only has a passing interest in humanity.

    I would like to believe in judgment and accountability.

    I don’t believe in human asexual reproduction either – the Virgin Birth is not held to be normal but miraculous.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    In my congo we don’t recite them. Probably worth saying something else. When I joined my congo, in practice the Trinity was probably the Father, the Son and the Holy Bible. Then the leadership embraced renewal and the Trinity for a while became the Holy Spirit, the Son and the Father for a while. Things settled down!

    My personal journey led me a predominantly more orthodox understanding because I got this sense that Something Was Missing. I realised two things. Firstly that activism was getting in the way of contemplation. Secondly that study of the history of the church didn’t end with the Bible as properly understood with the help of the Reformation. In that journey I was helped a lot by a couple of good friends who were on a similar journey. It’s hardly been a straight line journey!

    I love my local congo. Some are a lot less orthodox than me but it’s a kind and generous community, very good on local community support. They are individually and collectively on a journey and I’m very happy to journey with them. For well over half a century now.
  • Although I spent some years in a Baptist charismatic church, I've been most at home in Anglicanism. But I am one of those who see the creeds increasingly as historical statements that need to be reinterpreted in the light of modern knowledge.

    To take just one example, what do we really mean by "and he will come to judge the living and the dead" (Apostles Creed) or "He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead" (Nicene Creed)? Do we still really believe that there will be a moment not that far away when Christ's return will end all time and earthly existence? How does that work in the universe that we now know exists?

    These days, I am happier saying the simpler Apostles Creed than the Nicene. For me it is a recognition that we don't create faith afresh but stand on the foundations of countless generations of Christians. But we also now live in a very different world, and we have to reinterpret our faith accordingly, whilst trying to remain faithful to the core beliefs.

    I'm also wary of how the Creeds can be used to exclude people: "you have to sign up to all of this to be a Proper Christian." There are many many people would struggle to agree to all the statements in the creeds, and yet their hearts are in the right place and their lives reflect something of the love, humility and forgiveness that Jesus talked so much about.
  • @Basketactortale.

    Apologies. Mea Culpa.

    (It resonated with me because of my different understanding of what is important.)
  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited April 13
    [Deleted]
  • Charismatic evangelical and credal; we regularly recite the Apostles creed in church and even sing it in a worship song!
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host

    To take just one example, what do we really mean by "and he will come to judge the living and the dead" (Apostles Creed) or "He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead" (Nicene Creed)? Do we still really believe that there will be a moment not that far away when Christ's return will end all time and earthly existence? How does that work in the universe that we now know exists?

    "Not that far away" is rather load bearing here. In human lifespan terms? In terms of the lifetime of a species? Geological time? Cosmic time? The Creed doesn't project a timespan, only affirms that it will happen, presumably while humans (or perhaps fallen sapient beings in general) still exist. As to how it works: miraculously. Why should a final divine intervention obey any observed laws of the universe?
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    I think also that "he will come again to judge the living and the dead" does not necessarily imply a single event as in Michelangelo.
  • North East QuineNorth East Quine Purgatory Host
    I'm a credal Christian (Presbyterian). The Apostles' Creed was part of my Profession of Faith when I joined the church. We recite it in church several times a year.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    I am a Christian, but not in a creedal church.
  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    edited April 13
    With me, the problem is the single word "believe". All phrases apart from that I have studied, argued with, and come to some understanding of what they mean, even if in some cases that does not align perfectly with the original meaning and found myself led into deeper adoration of the divine through it. If that is belief, then I believe. I find saying it a useful communal focus on the core mysteries of the faith. It is as much about what is not said as what is said.

    However, belief is a slippery word. Some there will say it because they mean "I belong to the Church, therefore I believe..." , some will mean "These are things I am prepared to dies for", some will mean "these are as true as the grass is green..." some will mean "I trust these to be true..." and it goes on. Who am I to judge them, a word is only as its usage.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    I guess folks have used the Creeds in authoritarian and exclusionary ways. But I like something I read from an Orthodox commentator. Something like this.

    “If all the copies of the Bible were destroyed, and all that remained was a fragment from the first letter of St John, that God is love, then the essence of our faith could be restored”.

    If our understanding of the Creeds do not encourage us to follow Jesus on the journey of unselfish agape love, then something has gone seriously wrong.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    If our understanding of the Creeds do not encourage us to follow Jesus on the journey of unselfish agape love, then something has gone seriously wrong.

    Absolutely!


  • To take just one example, what do we really mean by "and he will come to judge the living and the dead" (Apostles Creed) or "He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead" (Nicene Creed)? Do we still really believe that there will be a moment not that far away when Christ's return will end all time and earthly existence? How does that work in the universe that we now know exists?

    "Not that far away" is rather load bearing here. In human lifespan terms? In terms of the lifetime of a species? Geological time? Cosmic time? The Creed doesn't project a timespan, only affirms that it will happen, presumably while humans (or perhaps fallen sapient beings in general) still exist. As to how it works: miraculously. Why should a final divine intervention obey any observed laws of the universe?

    Actually, you've just proved my point. You've reinterpreted this belief to mean something other than what was originally meant. Even after the expectation of an imminent Parousia faded, the early Church held to the idea that Christ would return and then all would be judged and life as we know it would end. There would be Heaven and there would be Hell and that would be it. That this might be in billions of years time was unthinkable.

    Will there be a moment of judgement for each of us when we stand in the presence of God? Yes - when we die. Will there be a moment when time and space is wrapped up and all who still living at that time are judged? That's far more problematic.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    With me, the problem is the single word "believe". All phrases apart from that I have studied, argued with, and come to some understanding of what they mean, even if in some cases that does not align perfectly with the original meaning and found myself led into deeper adoration of the divine through it. If that is belief, then I believe. I find saying it a useful communal focus on the core mysteries of the faith. It is as much about what is not said as what is said.

    However, belief is a slippery word. Some there will say it because they mean "I belong to the Church, therefore I believe..." , some will mean "These are things I am prepared to dies for", some will mean "these are as true as the grass is green..." some will mean "I trust these to be true..." and it goes on. Who am I to judge them, a word is only as its usage.

    "Believe" is to me pretty much a synonym of "Think" - they're the same word in French and some Welsh dialects so I don't think I'm too left field there. "I believe Paris is the capital of France" to me is a statement exactly parallel to "I believe Jesus rose again on the third day".

    For me it has nothing to do with belonging, except inasmuch as some groups require one hold certain beliefs to be a member of the group, but then it would be the belief enabling the membership, not membership driving the belief.

    I can't make sense of your first paragraph I'm afraid. It's probably a limitation of the way my mind works but it just doesn't convey anything.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    ... (b) some Baptist churches (not ours!) have in recent years adopted detailed Statements of Faith, far longer than the historic creeds.
    Yes, I've encountered examples of those. Some of them seem to demand commitment to convictions that go well beyond the parameters of the historic creeds. Even where those extras are ones I do not disagree with, it worries me when an ecclesiastical household demands as a precondition a person's commitment to something specific that is well beyond the scope of the general consensus of historic Christianity.

  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    I left the Anglican Church of Canada about a decade go and I am becoming more and more agnostic by the day.
  • SipechSipech Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    I guess folks have used the Creeds in authoritarian and exclusionary ways. But I like something I read from an Orthodox commentator. Something like this.

    “If all the copies of the Bible were destroyed, and all that remained was a fragment from the first letter of St John, that God is love, then the essence of our faith could be restored”.

    If our understanding of the Creeds do not encourage us to follow Jesus on the journey of unselfish agape love, then something has gone seriously wrong.

    I partially agree, but it would leave us open to repeating all the disputations of the past.

    I recall talking to an Anglican vicar once, noting that I was an evangelical background, and how we both differed. I said I liked the idea of "belonging before you believe" in contrast to the gatekeeping I saw in churches of my ilk, where orthodoxy was drummed into you before you could be a church member.

    His response was that he actually liked the gatekeeping as he felt frustrated that a large part of his work was having to combat centuries old heresies that various members of the congregation held to, even if they weren't doing so in order to be heterodox, but just that they believed what they chose to believe without a huge amount of reference to a good understanding of biblical texts.
  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited April 13
    Enoch wrote: »
    ... (b) some Baptist churches (not ours!) have in recent years adopted detailed Statements of Faith, far longer than the historic creeds.
    Yes, I've encountered examples of those. Some of them seem to demand commitment to convictions that go well beyond the parameters of the historic creeds. Even where those extras are ones I do not disagree with, it worries me when an ecclesiastical household demands as a precondition a person's commitment to something specific that is well beyond the scope of the general consensus of historic Christianity.
    I was going to post two very specific examples (one from an FIEC church and one from a GAFCON-linked Anglican church, both British, but decided not to.

    Interestingly, the Baptist Union of Great Britain itself only has a brief "Declaration of Principle". There was a recent attempt to mandate a much more detailed Statement of Faith, but it was then withdrawn.

    The European Baptist Federation, to which BUGB is affiliated, goes in for more detail: https://www.teddingtonbaptist.org.uk/tbcbapt2.htm

  • RockyRogerRockyRoger Shipmate
    I really don't know if I 'believe' them. I'd rather look at the one I believe in rather than a set of statements about Him (or Her). I especially struggle with 'foriveness of sins', my own especially and, 'the life to come'. But reciting the ancient Nicene creed on feast days is for me are a sacramental statement of how I choose to live.

    Barnabas 62 opined: 'If our understanding of the Creeds do not encourage us to follow Jesus on the journey of unselfish agape love, then something has gone seriously wrong'.

    Exactly! I would add, 'Do our 'beliefs', credal or otherwise, inspire and help to nurture the Fruits of the Spirit'?(Love, joy, peace, patience etc ....) if they do, there ain't much wrong with them, whatever they are.

    Sorry if this doesn't make much sense. Having been a Christian for sixty years there's a lot of emotion here!
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    I'm an orthodox credal Christian of the Lutheran variety.
    Ditto, except I’m of the Reformed/Presbyterian variety.

    We do have confessional statements written over the last century, in addition to the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds and Reformation-era confessional statements and catechisms.

  • PuzzlerPuzzler Shipmate
    The creeds are the bedrock of my faith, but there are aspects of them which I do not claim to fully understand or know how to interpret. Alongside statements of belief comes a way of living, following Christ.

    I am now an Anglican but grew up in an evangelical FIEC church. I value the freedom not to have to sign on the dotted line or subscribe to certain stipulations. I value inclusivity rather than barriers which separate and divide.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host

    To take just one example, what do we really mean by "and he will come to judge the living and the dead" (Apostles Creed) or "He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead" (Nicene Creed)? Do we still really believe that there will be a moment not that far away when Christ's return will end all time and earthly existence? How does that work in the universe that we now know exists?

    "Not that far away" is rather load bearing here. In human lifespan terms? In terms of the lifetime of a species? Geological time? Cosmic time? The Creed doesn't project a timespan, only affirms that it will happen, presumably while humans (or perhaps fallen sapient beings in general) still exist. As to how it works: miraculously. Why should a final divine intervention obey any observed laws of the universe?

    Actually, you've just proved my point. You've reinterpreted this belief to mean something other than what was originally meant. Even after the expectation of an imminent Parousia faded, the early Church held to the idea that Christ would return and then all would be judged and life as we know it would end. There would be Heaven and there would be Hell and that would be it. That this might be in billions of years time was unthinkable.

    The order of magnitude, perhaps, but given it had been 300 and counting by the time of the Council of Nicea it's not unreasonable to think that the gathered bishops new the end could come next week or a really long time from now. Scientific understanding may have expanded our idea of a really long time but the underlying principle is unchanged.
  • Since Rufus asked--

    I do believe that Jesus will return, visibly, physically, tangibly--and I try not to put expectations on the timeframe, since he told us not to. But yeah, could be today, could be quite a long time from now. To the best of my understanding, the only hint we have from him is "And the gospel must first be proclaimed to all nations," Mark 13:10. So I cautiously take it that we have a little time left. But I may be wrong. (who knows exactly how he defines "nations"?)
  • It has been defined - especially by folks such as Wycliffe Bible Translators or the horribly-called New Tribes Mission - as "people groups" rather than "nation states". That seems a good translation of "πάντα τὰ ἔθνη" but I'm no Greek scholar.
  • Episcopalian here, says the creed, but may not believe what others believe about the words.
  • StephenStephen Shipmate
    Welsh Anglican, moderately High Church who thinks the Orthodox may have a point over the filioque, but isn't quite sure....!
Sign In or Register to comment.