NationStates Jolt Archive

So, how do yu all feel about subordinate standards?

Those things like confessions, creeds, catechisms, theological declarations, etc.

They aren't at the level of Scripture: they can be wrong, they can be amended, etc. but they are considered authoritative interpretations of the Scripture.

How important do you think they are? Should they even exist? How much should members of the religion be required to subscribe to them? What about the leaders?

Examples, in case you're interested:
Christian:
Westminster Confession of Faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Confession_of_Faith)
Westminster Shorter Catechism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Shorter_Catechism)
Westminster Larger Catechism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Larger_Catechism)
Apostles' Creed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle%27s_Creed)
Nicene Creed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed)
Theological Declaration of Barmen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_Declaration_of_Barmen)
Belgic Confession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgic_Confession)
Heidelberg Catechism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidelberg_Catechism)
Helvetic Confessions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvetic_Confession)
Scots' Confession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_Confession)
Athanasian Creed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed)
Confession of 1967 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_of_1967)
Confession of Basel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_of_Basel)
Canons of Dordt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canons_of_Dordt)

Islam:
Hadith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith) I don't know much about it, but it seems to me like it might be a little more on the level of Scripture, but I wouldn't quote me on that.

Do you have any other examples (other religions, too)?

If they're authoritative interpretations of Scripture, then members of a particular religion and the leaders thereof should absolutely be bound by them. They're the rules, aren't they? You can't play the game unless you follow the rules. And you certainly can't start playing the game one way and then decide you don't like this, so you're going to change a few rules, at least, you can't and still keep calling it the same game. Now, you can try to get the rest of the people in the game to agree to a rule change, that's okay, but you shouldn't pick and choose which ones you're going to follow all on your own.

they have their place as common reference points and teaching tools but dont advance a person's spirituality and tend to divide people artificially.

they have their place as common reference points and teaching tools but dont advance a person's spirituality and tend to divide people artificially.

I'm not sure I agree. Let me say I'm an atheist, so in a way I shouldn't be saying anything on this, but it seems to me that if you call yourself a Roman Catholic, or a Presbyterian, or a Methodist, or a member of the Greek Orthodox Church, you should know and follow what your church believes in, and that means acknoledging the various creeds, confessions and rules. To say, "I'm a Catholic but ..." borders on hypocrisy. There is no "but." Saying that is about the same as President Bush's famous signing statements. You follow the rules as written. As I said before, if you can get them changed, that's one thing, but you can't just decide to follow the ones you like.

I'm not sure I agree. Let me say I'm an atheist, so in a way I shouldn't be saying anything on this, but it seems to me that if you call yourself a Roman Catholic, or a Presbyterian, or a Methodist, or a member of the Greek Orthodox Church, you should know and follow what your church believes in, and that means acknoledging the various creeds, confessions and rules. To say, "I'm a Catholic but ..." borders on hypocrisy. There is no "but." Saying that is about the same as President Bush's famous signing statements. You follow the rules as written. As I said before, if you can get them changed, that's one thing, but you can't just decide to follow the ones you like.

Ashmoria supports a lot of ecumenicalism (which is fine), but s/he supports it to the point where important points (like the sovereignty of God) become non-issues, which is a serious error.

they have their place as common reference points and teaching tools but dont advance a person's spirituality and tend to divide people artificially.

agreed. I tend to shy away from them.

I'm not sure I agree. Let me say I'm an atheist, so in a way I shouldn't be saying anything on this, but it seems to me that if you call yourself a Roman Catholic, or a Presbyterian, or a Methodist, or a member of the Greek Orthodox Church, you should know and follow what your church believes in, and that means acknoledging the various creeds, confessions and rules. To say, "I'm a Catholic but ..." borders on hypocrisy. There is no "but." Saying that is about the same as President Bush's famous signing statements. You follow the rules as written. As I said before, if you can get them changed, that's one thing, but you can't just decide to follow the ones you like.

If someone refers to themselves as a Republican, but disagrees with some of the planks in the party platform, is he a hypocrite?

I voted against Georgia's constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and I still disagree with it. Does that mean I either have to stop referring to myself as a citizen of the state of GA or I am a hypocrite?

A person's religion is a personal thing. It would be far, far more hypocritical to stick to the "party line" if you did not truly believe it all. Descriptors are groupings of similar beliefs, not identical ones.

I'm not sure I agree. Let me say I'm an atheist, so in a way I shouldn't be saying anything on this, but it seems to me that if you call yourself a Roman Catholic, or a Presbyterian, or a Methodist, or a member of the Greek Orthodox Church, you should know and follow what your church believes in, and that means acknoledging the various creeds, confessions and rules. To say, "I'm a Catholic but ..." borders on hypocrisy. There is no "but." Saying that is about the same as President Bush's famous signing statements. You follow the rules as written. As I said before, if you can get them changed, that's one thing, but you can't just decide to follow the ones you like.

Hmm. And what if your denomination changes its standing on an issue? Do you have to change belief? And if you do, does this mean that the previous opinion was wrong, including all people that died before the correction?

If someone refers to themselves as a Republican, but disagrees with some of the planks in the party platform, is he a hypocrite?

I voted against Georgia's constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and I still disagree with it. Does that mean I either have to stop referring to myself as a citizen of the state of GA or I am a hypocrite?

A person's religion is a personal thing. It would be far, far more hypocritical to stick to the "party line" if you did not truly believe it all. Descriptors are groupings of similar beliefs, not identical ones.
Not quite the same thing in politics as it is in religion. Religion is supposed to be the truest thing in your life. You can disagree with certain tenets of your religion and try to change them, but if they say you should do something, and you don't because you disagree, how can you call yourself a true member of that religion? And if you can't get your coreligionists to change, shouldn't you leave that denomination?

Hmm. And what if your denomination changes its standing on an issue? Do you have to change belief? And if you do, does this mean that the previous opinion was wrong, including all people that died before the correction?
If your denomination changes what it believes, it does so because the truth has been revealed to it by God, so it's not a problem. As for the folks who went before, they're with God and it has all been explained to them already.

We're discussing religion here, not politics, not baseball, not football (of either the American, European or Australian varieties), not fashion, not your favorite TV shows. If you trust your immortal soul to a particular way of worshipping the Almighty, I think it behooves you to follow all the rules.

Not quite the same thing in politics as it is in religion. Religion is supposed to be the truest thing in your life. You can disagree with certain tenets of your religion and try to change them, but if they say you should do something, and you don't because you disagree, how can you call yourself a true member of that religion? And if you can't get your coreligionists to change, shouldn't you leave that denomination?

my entire religious experience relies on the fact that I choose what I believe, not that some "entity" tells me what to believe. I am associated with a denomination, but we don't have any creeds, confessions, or anything like that, they have a "faith message" but it is not required for me or my church to accept it as truth.

I worry about people who have other people to tell them what to believe.

my entire religious experience relies on the fact that I choose what I believe, not that some "entity" tells me what to believe. I am associated with a denomination, but we don't have any creeds, confessions, or anything like that, they have a "faith message" but it is not required for me or my church to accept it as truth.

I worry about people who have other people to tell them what to believe.

Some folks appear to need to be told. Again, I'm not actually a believer or any flavor, so ... But this is my point, in a way: Smunkee's denomination's rules are that there aren't many rules, so she's got it easier and can honestly say she chooses what she believes.

Not quite the same thing in politics as it is in religion.

Actually, they're quite similar. Most people don't adopt beliefs because of their political affiliations (although some certainly do). Instead, they create political affiliations based upon their shared interests and political viewpoints.

Religions are very similar. The idea is not that you will change your belief and actions to match a particular religion, but that those with similar beliefs and actions will form an affiliation based upon their shared interests. This, of course, means that there will be disagreements and, even if the majority decides upon a specific doctrine, the individual may very well not believe in it. And if they don't believe, it would be awfully hypocritical to follow it just because, now wouldn't it?

Religion is supposed to be the truest thing in your life.

...which is exactly why you can't blindly follow just because some religious leader or even group of such leaders says so.

You can disagree with certain tenets of your religion and try to change them, but if they say you should do something, and you don't because you disagree, how can you call yourself a true member of that religion?

The same way a Republican who votes against a portion of the party platform can call himself a true Republican.

And if you can't get your coreligionists to change, shouldn't you leave that denomination?

Most denominations are banded together because the members agree on the majority of the "big issues", as it were. They never do, and never will, agree on all doctrinal issues. A person who chooses to self-identify as a member of a certain denomination does so because that denomination's official doctrine is closest to their own beliefs. This does not mean (and should not mean) that they will blindly follow the edicts of said denomination.

If your denomination changes something that is a cornerstone of your belief, then yes, you would probably want to leave that denomination. But if it is a fairly minor doctrinal issue, and you agree on the larger points, you are unlikely to find a grouping more similar to your own beliefs.

If your denomination changes what it believes, it does so because the truth has been revealed to it by God, so it's not a problem

If your denomination changes what it believes, it is because the church leaders believe the truth has been revealed by God to them. It is very possible that an individual believer feels that the church leaders were in error.

If you trust your immortal soul to a particular way of worshipping the Almighty, I think it behooves you to follow all the rules.

Only if you agree with all the rules. If you think God is leading you to disagree with some of them, wouldn't it be better to continue to disagree?


I worry about people who have other people to tell them what to believe.

Indeed. How can such a person even claim said belief? It is someone else's, not theirs.

*snip for brevity*

I've never been on the receiving end of one of your point-by-point answers, Dem. It's quite an experience. :p

I should stop posting on this one, because I really don't much care. Still, I do think that people who call themselves devout members of whatever denomination or religion should understand what their faith believes and stand up for it. Roman Catholics who disagree with the Pope on abortion should, I believe, leave the Church. It's fairly obvious that Church teachings on this are not about to change any time soon. They could form their own church (it might not be easy but it has been done) or join the Episcopalians (assuming they are more in line with what I described). But to say "I am a devout Catholic who supports abortion rights" is a contradiction. If we're talking about what the Pope wears to perform Mass, yeah, okay, there's room for discussion.

A person's religion is a personal thing. It would be far, far more hypocritical to stick to the "party line" if you did not truly believe it all. Descriptors are groupings of similar beliefs, not identical ones.

Which is why it's hypocritical.

Example: the very definition of the Presbyterian denomination (not structure of government) is that it has a Calvinist theology

If you aren't Calvinist, you aren't Presbyterian. And to claim that label is to be a hypocrite. Change your denomination's stance, or change your affiliation. And if the denomination change's its stance, it had better change its name, too.

i'm not religious at all but if i was i wouldn't want some old person telling me how to interpret my holy book as if their interpretation was more valid or relevant to me than my own.

Here's how I look at it.

A lot of persons got together. In the case of the major denominations and major connected religions, these persons were schooled in theology and had spent many years studying Scripture.

They got together and spent days, months, even years arguing about single issues. Finally, they come to a consensus about what the Scripture says. They write it down. Then, they pass it on to the people, saying "it is an authoritative interpretation (you can hold persons to it) of Scripture. But, we recognize that we are mere humans and can make mistakes. Therefore, if you can prove to us that we were incorrect in our interpretation, we must change it."

And it's passed down and other persons pore over it and accept it and reject it over many years.

And when a person objects, they look to see if the objection is correct, and all the theologians and ministers and elders get together and study Scripture on the subject. If they find the objection to be correct, they amend it, or throw it out. If they find it to be incorrect, they say "You need to change your ideas and here are the Scriptures why. If you are still convinced that we are incorrect, you probably need to go elsewhere."

And the person has three options: he can change his mind (but he had better truly be convinced that they a right, not just submitting), he can refuse to change his mind and stay and (depending on the importance of the issue) have action taken against him (defrocked or excommunicated), or he can refuse to change his mind and leave peacefully.

But what confessions and creeds do is to keep anyone from coming in and saying "Scripture says..." If you have a set of standards that persons must meet, what you are doing is maintaining correct teaching and not allowing your religion or denomination to be tossed here and there by the winds of doctrine.

Some folks appear to need to be told. Again, I'm not actually a believer or any flavor, so ... But this is my point, in a way: Smunkee's denomination's rules are that there aren't many rules, so she's got it easier and can honestly say she chooses what she believes.

some people need to be told what to believe. some people need to follow their own vision. some people are attracted to the idea of a loving forgiving god. some are attracted to the idea of a tyrannical punishing god. some are free flowing. some are legalistic.

in christianity, all these things are covered yet everyone is a christian.

i disagree totally with chieuste's view of religion but he is still a christian. to make a fuss is to deny our common ground.

I've never been on the receiving end of one of your point-by-point answers, Dem. It's quite an experience. :p

I should stop posting on this one, because I really don't much care. Still, I do think that people who call themselves devout members of whatever denomination or religion should understand what their faith believes and stand up for it. Roman Catholics who disagree with the Pope on abortion should, I believe, leave the Church. It's fairly obvious that Church teachings on this are not about to change any time soon. They could form their own church (it might not be easy but it has been done) or join the Episcopalians (assuming they are more in line with what I described). But to say "I am a devout Catholic who supports abortion rights" is a contradiction. If we're talking about what the Pope wears to perform Mass, yeah, okay, there's room for discussion.


thats because you dont understand what it means to be a roman catholic.

Here's how I look at it.

A lot of persons got together. In the case of the major denominations and major connected religions, these persons were schooled in theology and had spent many years studying Scripture.

They got together and spent days, months, even years arguing about single issues. Finally, they come to a consensus about what the Scripture says. They write it down. Then, they pass it on to the people, saying "it is an authoritative interpretation (you can hold persons to it) of Scripture. But, we recognize that we are mere humans and can make mistakes. Therefore, if you can prove to us that we were incorrect in our interpretation, we must change it."

And it's passed down and other persons pore over it and accept it and reject it over many years.

And when a person objects, they look to see if the objection is correct, and all the theologians and ministers and elders get together and study Scripture on the subject. If they find the objection to be correct, they amend it, or throw it out. If they find it to be incorrect, they say "You need to change your ideas and here are the Scriptures why. If you are still convinced that we are incorrect, you probably need to go elsewhere."

And the person has three options: he can change his mind (but he had better truly be convinced that they a right, not just submitting), he can refuse to change his mind and stay and (depending on the importance of the issue) have action taken against him (defrocked or excommunicated), or he can refuse to change his mind and leave peacefully.

But what confessions and creeds do is to keep anyone from coming in and saying "Scripture says..." If you have a set of standards that persons must meet, what you are doing is maintaining correct teaching and not allowing your religion or denomination to be tossed here and there by the winds of doctrine.


i think thats a good way to look at it.

as you said, its not the same as scripture but it does (or should) hang together well. it has to use the scriptures as a background and justification. if it flat out contradicts scripture, it cant be right. it has to be a logical interpretation of scripture.

but as we can see, its quite possible to make a different but honest interpretation. thats how we get calvinism. calvin had an honest disagreement with common interpretation of scriptures. he thought his own way through it and came up with his own christian doctrines.

Which is why it's hypocritical.

Example: the very definition of the Presbyterian denomination (not structure of government) is that it has a Calvinist theology

If you aren't Calvinist, you aren't Presbyterian. And to claim that label is to be a hypocrite. Change your denomination's stance, or change your affiliation. And if the denomination change's its stance, it had better change its name, too.

Find me two Presbyterians with exactly the same beliefs and I'll show you at least one Presbyterian who hasn't really thought about it.

We aren't talking about someone claiming to be Christian and then saying, "Oh, but I don't believe in Christ." We are talking about someone saying, "I am Presbyterian, but I don't agree with the church's stance on this paticular issue...."

i think thats a good way to look at it.

as you said, its not the same as scripture but it does (or should) hang together well. it has to use the scriptures as a background and justification. if it flat out contradicts scripture, it cant be right. it has to be a logical interpretation of scripture.

but as we can see, its quite possible to make a different but honest interpretation. thats how we get calvinism. calvin had an honest disagreement with common interpretation of scriptures. he thought his own way through it and came up with his own christian doctrines.

And that's why there are denominations: groups of Christians who can and ought to work together ecumenically, but can and ought to still insist on insisting on the full truth.

Find me two "Presbyterians" with exactly the same beliefs and I'll show you at least one "Presbyterian" who hasn't really thought about it.

Edited for truth.

We aren't talking about someone claiming to be Christian and then saying, "Oh, but I don't believe in Christ." We are talking about someone saying, "I am Presbyterian, but I don't agree with the church's stance on this paticular issue...."

But it's the same idea. I'm not saying that the church must have everything written down. There is a lot we disagree about inside the denominations. But, you shouldn't call yourself something (whatever it is) when you are, by definition, not that thing.

Example: my denomination takes no official stand on prophecy, speaking in tongues etc. in today's world. The majority are cessationists (Those happened at the establishing of the Church, but have since ended), but there are some, like me, who are charismatic (the gifts are still active).

There are other things (like predestination) which are too great of an issue to say "Do your own thing." We can, ought, and do work with Christians who disagree, but we still insist on insisting that predestination is correct.

Well the Hadith which is basically the prophet's(pbuh) words and actions I guess would be the Islamic equal to what you're talking about and they are very important. The Hadith helps dictate prayer, actions, etc.

Don’t care. Atheist.

Edited for truth.

Ah, so you are the arbiter of who is and is not a Presbyterian. Next time I have doubts, I'll be sure to come to you, since you are obviously the only "true" Presbyterian out there. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, when changing someone's quote, it is customary to boldface or in some other way make your changes obvious. Otherwise, it may look to others as if I actually thought I was the sole person who can determine "true" Presbyterianism.

But it's the same idea. I'm not saying that the church must have everything written down. There is a lot we disagree about inside the denominations. But, you shouldn't call yourself something (whatever it is) when you are, by definition, not that thing.

Who defines it?

If you can disagree within the denomination, doesn't that mean that you do not all have the same beliefs?

Don’t care. Atheist.

LOL, for some reason, this reminded me of Pirates of the Carribean:

"You cheated!"
*shrug* "Pirate."

Ah, so you are the arbiter of who is and is not a Presbyterian. Next time I have doubts, I'll be sure to come to you, since you are obviously the only "true" Presbyterian out there. :rolleyes:

I don't decide: the dictionary does.

Meanwhile, when changing someone's quote, it is customary to boldface or in some other way make your changes obvious. Otherwise, it may look to others as if I actually thought I was the sole person who can determine "true" Presbyterianism.

My apologies.

Who defines it?

If you can disagree within the denomination, doesn't that mean that you do not all have the same beliefs?

Not necessarily: there are stances (which are not as firm as beliefs), actions, and beliefs. The beliefs are what make you Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Muslim, etc. You can disagree with the other two.

thats because you dont understand what it means to be a roman catholic.

I suppose I don't. I wasn't aware that Roman Catholics had that much wiggle room in what they follow.

I suppose I don't. I wasn't aware that Roman Catholics had that much wiggle room in what they follow.

Pretty much as long as you agree with Tradition (note the capital T) and the correct explanation and administering of the sacraments, you're in.

I suppose I don't. I wasn't aware that Roman Catholics had that much wiggle room in what they follow.

being a catholic is more than choosing a theology. most people dont much care about the details of dogma and doctrine anyway.

if a person should suddenly decide that the doctrine of child baptism, for example, is an abomination, they can move on to a different denomination i suppose. most people dont care that much about it. as a friend once said to me "if the church wants me to believe that mary was bodily assumed into heave, FINE, what do i care, i wasnt there."

being a catholic is about tradition, history, ceremony and contact with the sacred. we dont have ministers, we have priests. we dont have service on sunday, we have the mass where the last supper is recreated and the bread and wine is transformed into the body and blood of jesus. its not a memorial, its a sacred act. you can attend catholic mass anywhere in the world and know exactly what is going on. its a tradition of more than a thousand years.

once you are baptised catholic, you are catholic forever. even i as a hardcore atheist am one confession away from being 100% fine with the church. there is no disagreement over the definition of salvation or the role of grace that would take me to a different church.

even i as a hardcore atheist am one confession away from being 100% fine with the church.

I thought you were some odd (in the sense of unusual) ecumenical non-denominationalist Christian of some sort.

I thought you were some odd (in the sense of unusual) ecumenical non-denominationalist Christian of some sort.

nooo im a catholic atheist.

i have the unfortunate impediment of nonbelief so that no matter how interesting catholic practices are i dont believe they have any basis in any kind of reality. i can't possibly believe in transubstantiation (for example) so that leaves me open to understanding other interations of christian practice.

i find the idea that the pope is the earthly representative of jesus whose authority has been passed from man to man for 2000 years wonderful but since i dont actually believe it, i can see why YOU dont.

nooo im a catholic atheist.

i have the unfortunate impediment of nonbelief so that no matter how interesting catholic practices are i dont believe they have any basis in any kind of reality. i can't possibly believe in transubstantiation (for example) so that leaves me open to understanding other interations of christian practice.

i find the idea that the pope is the earthly representative of jesus whose authority has been passed from man to man for 2000 years wonderful but since i dont actually believe it, i can see why YOU dont.

I don't even understand why you care to argue/discuss it, then, but it's your life to spend how you wish.

must be the lack of correct answers

why do you debate religion here instead of on a religious forum?

I don't decide: the dictionary does.

Ok then:

Main Entry: 1Pres·by·te·ri·an
Pronunciation: -E-&n
Function: noun
: a member of a Presbyterian church

Apparently, anyone who is a member of the Presbyterian church is a Presbyterian, whether they agree fully with the doctrine or not. And this is according to the authority you cited - the dictionary.

Not necessarily: there are stances (which are not as firm as beliefs), actions, and beliefs.

What separates a stance from a belief? Who decides what constitutes a stance and what constitutes a belief? If it is truly based on the firmness of conviction, it would seem that only the individual believer/stance-holder could determine which is which, while an outside entity could not.

must be the lack of correct answers

why do you debate religion here instead of on a religious forum?

Why debate on a religous forum?

Everyone ther has already thought it out, or is thinking it out. The majority of persons here haven't thought anything about it (though they like to think they have). So, I think that here is a good place to get the people thinking.

Plus, I like to debate other stuff as well, and this presents a little bit of everything.

[QUOTE]Ok then:

Apparently, anyone who is a member of the Presbyterian church is a Presbyterian, whether they agree fully with the doctrine or not. And this is according to the authority you cited - the dictionary.

My dictionary defines a Presbyterian as "member from a Calvinist Protestant denomination with a democratic church government." [The government's really more republican, but everyone today uses the two as synomnyms]

Webster's New World

What separates a stance from a belief? Who decides what constitutes a stance and what constitutes a belief? If it is truly based on the firmness of conviction, it would seem that only the individual believer/stance-holder could determine which is which, while an outside entity could not.

A stance says: we the majority of persons in this denomination think A should be happening or B should not be happening.

A belief says: this is the Truth as God has revealed it to us.

My dictionary defines a Presbyterian as "member from a Calvinist Protestant denomination with a democratic church government." [The government's really more republican, but everyone today uses the two as synomnyms]

...which still says it is any member of said church. It says nothing at all of individual beliefs.

A stance says: we the majority of persons in this denomination think A should be happening or B should not be happening.

A belief says: this is the Truth as God has revealed it to us.

So there is no such thing as personal stance or belief in your worldview?

...which still says it is any member of said church. It says nothing at all of individual beliefs.



So there is no such thing as personal stance or belief in your worldview?

You miss the point.

A stance says "This is how I feel or what I think based on what I am convinced of"

A belief says "This is what I am convinced of"

You miss the point.

A stance says "This is how I feel or what I think based on what I am convinced of"

A belief says "This is what I am convinced of"

If it is individual, then it is possible for someone to be convinced of something that (a) the church doesn't propose a "convinced of" idea or (b) the church does, but the believer disagrees.

If beliefs are decided by personal conviction, then it is possible - indeed, very likely - for people within a single church to hold different beliefs.

If it is individual, then it is possible for someone to be convinced of something that (a) the church doesn't propose a "convinced of" idea or (b) the church does, but the believer disagrees.

If beliefs are decided by personal conviction, then it is possible - indeed, very likely - for people within a single church to hold different beliefs.

I'm not disagreeing with that.

What I'm disagreeing with is when persons disagree with a belief and call themselves something when they are disagreeing with a belief that defines the label.

Back to my original example: Persons claiming to be Presbyterian when they refuse to believe in Calvinism.

What you are supporting is that I could call myself a predestinarian and yet say that God has no power over anything.

If we stay true to definitions it makes everything so much less confusing. Plus, I fail to understand why you would want to associate yourself with a group which by definition has heretical ideas by using its name.

I'm not disagreeing with that.

Good then.

Then you had no reason to change my quote when I stated that you will not find two Presbyterians with the exact same beliefs. They will have similar beliefs, and will likely agree on many things, but they will not have the exact same beliefs.

What I'm disagreeing with is when persons disagree with a belief and call themselves something when they are disagreeing with a belief that defines the label.

Who gets to define the label?

Back to my original example: Persons claiming to be Presbyterian when they refuse to believe in Calvinism.

I have yet to meet a Presbyterian who believes in Calvinism exactly as Calvin put it. In fact, such a person would be pretty scary. Pretty much every Presbyterian church has softened Calvin's viewpoints some, often in different ways from the next Presbyterian church. Oh, they agree on the big issue - predestinationism. They simply disagree on precisely what that means.

If we stay true to definitions it makes everything so much less confusing. Plus, I fail to understand why you would want to associate yourself with a group which by definition has heretical ideas by using its name.

Maybe because pretty much every group has "heretical" ideas. No human being is infallible, so we all make mistakes - we are all going to hold beliefs that are incorrect unless we get awfully lucky. Groups of human beings are no different. People associate themselves with a group because they share some similarities with that group. If Presbyterianism is the closest organized religion to a person's belief, and they wish to associate with others of similar beliefs, they will likely join a Presbyterian church. Either that, or they will describe themselves as non-denominational, but similar to Presbyterian.

Good then.

Then you had no reason to change my quote when I stated that you will not find two Presbyterians with the exact same beliefs. They will have similar beliefs, and will likely agree on many things, but they will not have the exact same beliefs.

Presbyterians disagree on lots of things: I'm Christian Reconstructionist, 99% of the persons at my church are not. But that's not a defining characteristic of Presbyterianism.

Who gets to define the label?

It's language. It simply came to mean that. And will it change? Yes. But we, for the sake of everyone, so we don't have to say "I believe this and this and this and this and this...", but can just say "I am this," should insist on maintaining definitions so long as we can. Much less confusion that way. You can even say: "I'm a Presbyterian with less 'rabid' Calvinist leanings," but at least you're acknowleding that you are not fitting the definition

I have yet to meet a Presbyterian who believes in Calvinism exactly as Calvin put it. In fact, such a person would be pretty scary. Pretty much every Presbyterian church has softened Calvin's viewpoints some, often in different ways from the next Presbyterian church. Oh, they agree on the big issue - predestinationism. They simply disagree on precisely what that means.

Not really. All Presbyterian churches are still Reformed, though some have "toned it down" not really changing doctrine, but just not emphasizing it as much. It's been the things even more particular within Calvinism which they have changed: the singing of psalms only, some from consubstantiation to Zwinglian explanation of Communion, etc.

Maybe because pretty much every group has "heretical" ideas. No human being is infallible, so we all make mistakes - we are all going to hold beliefs that are incorrect unless we get awfully lucky. Groups of human beings are no different. People associate themselves with a group because they share some similarities with that group. If Presbyterianism is the closest organized religion to a person's belief, and they wish to associate with others of similar beliefs, they will likely join a Presbyterian church.

Which is the wrong reason. We are to seek purity, not "belonging"

Either that, or they will describe themselves as non-denominational, but similar to Presbyterian.

Which is better.

Presbyterians disagree on lots of things:

Precisely my point.

It's language. It simply came to mean that.

It obviously doesn't mean the same thing to others as it does to you.

Not really.

Yes, really. Much like the Catholic Church adopted Augustine's ideas, sort of - leaving out the more disagreeable parts, most Presbyterian churches have adopted Calvin's ideas, sort of. Much of what I've heard as standard doctrine in Presbyterian churches would be likely to make Calvin roll over in his grave.

Which is the wrong reason. We are to seek purity, not "belonging"

Who said anything about "belonging"? People are banded together by similar beliefs, so that we can identify them as having similar beliefs. Two random Presbyterians have likely never met each other, but we can know that their beliefs will be similar by their categorization as Presbyterians.

Meanwhile, if you need purity, you shouldn't join any groups at all unless they agree with you on 100% of the relevant points. Any religion must agree with you 100%. Any political party must agree with you 100%. If not, you shouldn't be a part of it.

Of course, this means that, if you actually think it through for yourself, you will always be a group of exactly one.

Which is better.

According to you, the definer of all things Presbyterian?

Two random Presbyterians have likely never met each other, but we can know that their beliefs will be similar by their categorization as Presbyterians.

It comes down to this statement above.

You're saying that because I and whoever call ourselves Presbyterians we can know that we have similar beliefs. But you can't. Because whoever rejects Calvinism, refuses to believe in the infalliblity of Scripture, thinks that anyone (baptized believer or not) can participate in Communion, thinks the Pope is the head of the Church, and thinks that Jesus married Mary Magdelene.

But s/he goes to a Presbyterian church and might even be a member or a leader (sinfully on the part of the Church for admitting or ordaining such a person) s/he takes the label, though it disagrees with everything that Presbyterian means.

Guess what, we have nothing in common. All it does is to promote confusion and moral/doctrinal relativity. That's why we need to hold firm and say: "No you're really not Presbyterian (or RC, or EO or whatever) and here's why. Repent."

I've always felt that I'm capable of interpreting the written word for myself. Because of this, I've determined that the Old Testament is a retelling of Middle Eastern myths carefully edited to support the Judeo/Christian stance. The New Testament has taken carefully chosen segments of the Old Testament to support their view of Christ as well as some carefully chosen writings (of all of the thousands of "gospels" written, only four were chosen because they supported the agenda of the church). The Bible, therefore, is not God's word but man's word. This in no way indicates whether God exists or not - that is a separate issue.

I've always felt that I'm capable of interpreting the written word for myself. Because of this, I've determined that the Old Testament is a retelling of Middle Eastern myths carefully edited to support the Judeo/Christian stance. The New Testament has taken carefully chosen segments of the Old Testament to support their view of Christ as well as some carefully chosen writings (of all of the thousands of "gospels" written, only four were chosen because they supported the agenda of the church). The Bible, therefore, is not God's word but man's word. This in no way indicates whether God exists or not - that is a separate issue.

is that a creed or a confession?

So, how do yu all feel about subordinate standards?

Those things like confessions, creeds, catechisms, theological declarations, etc.

They aren't at the level of Scripture: they can be wrong, they can be amended, etc. but they are considered authoritative interpretations of the Scripture.

How important do you think they are? Should they even exist? How much should members of the religion be required to subscribe to them? What about the leaders?
...snip...

I believe that there are at least two different types of things in your list there. One type of thing is a creed, a vow, an oath. A Statement of faith that says, "This is what I believe as a matter of faith and salvation." It is not something that is discretionary. You either take the oath of office, per-se, or you don't hold that position at all...

The other is a matter of theology, as I understand it, as I see it, as we think this is, and how we think a person can understand the mystery, the unknown, the important but non essential. Like having a faith in what Heaven is actually like but admitting that you haven't actually been there, is it bodies glorified, or spirits with heavenly bodies, the difference in opinion could be a non-separating divisive one, both might be held by members of the same congregation. Two Baptists or Two Catholics can disagree with each other on an aspect but they don't change their creed, vow, oaths, that make them Catholics and Baptists seperate.

A senator cannot be a senator without taking the oath... I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. And All senators must take it, but none of them agree with each other on any every other subject 100%.

So is creed is a requirement, a necessity. A Catechism may be something less important and a person wouldn't be required to vow it before admittance to the church...

Whereas: Saying the Apostles Creed:
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. AMEN.

...Is a requirement before baptism into membership with some church's, before they allow you to be a member of the body of the congregation, i.e., if you don't vow it, you can't be a member. Thus, the creed and oath statement of faith is far more stringent for defining lines between groups than a catechism might be.

is that a creed or a confession?

Yes, but my own. I don't require that anyone else follow it.