[Full preterists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism) believe that all prophecies in the Bible have already been fulfilled, including those related to the final resurrection, the Second Coming of Christ, and the Final Judgment. I have met some Protestant preterists who believe that their beliefs are in accord with the ecumenical creeds, despite language in the creeds that seems to imply that the Second Coming and other eschatological events are yet to come. Do any Roman Catholic or Protestant councils or creeds specifically state that full preterist beliefs are heretical?

According to reformed theology, in the Savoy Declaration of Faith, Chapter 26 (*Of the Church*), paragraph 4, the Pope is the Antichrist. >There is no other Head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God, whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. Also in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 26 (*Of the Church*), paragraph 4, we found the same, the Pope as the Antichrist. >The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. But how can he be **THE** Antichrist, as 2 Thessalonians 2: 2-9 says, if it is talking about a position and not a person. Would not be more in line with the concept of the spirit of the antichrist, of which it is spoken of in 1 John 2: 18-19 and 1 John 4: 2-3. How can this paragraph be interpreted? The Pope is *an* antichrist or the Pope is *the* Antichrist?

In Catholicism, what is the difference between a [Creed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Nicene_Creed) , an [Encyclical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclical) , a [Decretal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decretal) , a [Canon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Laodicea#Biblical_canon) and a [Papal Bull](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_bull) ? Are there any other decrees or formal or informal outlines of official church doctrine used by the Catholic church and are any excluded from or exclusively used for inerrant revelation from God by the Pope?

Considering the whole umbrella of Christendom including Eastern Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Coptic Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Protestant, Pentecostal, Abyssinian, has there been any acceptance of people as true "Christian" who refuse to believe in Creation by a God? Can a person, in any of these streams of Christianity, deny the part of the Creeds mentioning Creation, and still be considered legitimate members of the Christian Church? Still be called Christian? Is ***Creation of the universe by a God*** considered an *essential belief*, or a non-essential? This question totally ignores "how" a Creation was carried out; it sets aside the discussion of the "manner or method" of said Creation! Or is this a ***universal prerequisite"*** (along with perhaps other beliefs or doctrines)? ***Verses to consider to help in answering this***: >Thus saith God the LORD, He who created the heavens and stretched them out; He who spread forth the earth, and that which comes out of it; He who gives breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them who walk therein. (Isaiah 42:5) >Giving thanks to the Father...Who has delivered us from the power of darkness, and has translated us into the Kingdom of His dear Son...For by Him were all things created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible...all things were created by Him, and for Him. (Colossians 1:12-16)

Why were ousia and hypostasis synonymous in the Nicene Creed? ---- In the original 325 A.D. Nicene Creed, an anathema is included which has ousia and hypostasis as synonymous. In this case, the Trinity is one hypostasis ( = homoousios). >And in the Holy Spirit. But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a ***different hypostasis or substance*** (ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσιάς) or created, or is subject to alteration or change these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes. Source: https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/creed_of_nicaea_325.htm It seems also the meaning of υποστασις in Hebrews 1:3. >He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his ***nature*** (υποστασις) (ESV). The ASV has "substance". However, in later centuries hypostasis began referring to the "person", not the "nature" or "being" of the Trinity. **Why did such change in definition occur?** It would be helpful to address the semantical development of υποστασις on how it changed from "substance" (nature/essence) to "person". >The Church confesses is that God is three Persons (hypostasis) in one Essence (ousia). Source: https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/exploringthedepthsofthedivine.wordpress.com/2015/08/12/god-as-trinity-orthodox-trinitarianism/amp/

Having read an article in the British November 2024 *Evangelical Times* newspaper on this question, I was heartily in agreement with it till halfway through, thus giving rise to my question. Very briefly, the writer clearly showed from scripture that we are all doomed to fall under God’s judgment unless our union with Adam changes to union with Christ (Romans 5:14). But then I was troubled to read an interpretation of that chapter ***claiming we are “saved through the obedience of Christ.”*** The writer subscribes to the *Westminster Confession of Faith* that this was Christ perfectly keeping the Law on our behalf. (XIX.5 & 6) Yet the writer then admitted that: > [Many Christians] “still find the pull of legalism to be powerful… Is > my Christian living up to standard? Am I doing well enough to remain > on track for heaven?” *Evangelical Times*, article [‘Joined to the wrong man’](https://www.evangelical-times.org/joined-to-the-wrong-man/) p.10, Vol. 58 No.11 He says such questions are inapplicable as it is who we are united to that determines eternal destinies – and that is true – but my question is, What ***enables*** anyone to be transferred from being united to Adam to Christ? (I am not asking *whether* we are joined to Adam - this question is for those in the Reformed Protestant category, for whom that is a given.) I thought Romans chapter 5 spoke of our “being justified ***by his blood***… reconciled ***by the death of his Son***… saved ***by his life***” (vs. 9-10). When it speaks of obedience, it is Christ having been ***“obedient unto death, even the death of the cross”***, surely? **Is there anywhere in the entire Bible that states we have union with Christ through his obedience to the Law?** Yet if people believe that, is it no wonder they get pulled into legalistic doubts?

After the reforms of the 16th century, the Scots Confession served as the primary confession for the Church of Scotland for just over 80 years. In 1648 it was replaced by the The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines , a later revision of which is widely known as the Westminster Confession of Faith and is still used today in many Protestant denominations. Meanwhile I don't hear much about the Scots Confession. I'm curious what changes switching to the Westminster Confession brought over the Scots Confession of the previous century. According to what the Westminster divines set out in the WCF, on what points would the Scots confession have been considered either incomplete, not clear, or outright wrong?

I received a letter from someone in the UK which, twice, used this expression and I wonder what it was meant to convey, especially the word 'alone'. Is this a saying of a particular group of self-identifying Christians ? If so, what are they communicating by the 'alone' ? Are they implying that no other matters can be included as a ground of gathering ? And why is the title 'Christ' not mentioned, or 'Son of God' ?

The common interpretation of > "we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins" in the 381 [Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#Comparison_between_creed_of_325_and_creed_of_381) was [baptismal regeneration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptismal_regeneration) which makes many Baptists uncomfortable, although recent Baptist scholars *still* advocate that Baptists confess it (see how Gavin Ortlund [argued for a Baptist interpretation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f41aB2y8CvQ&t=912s) , see also CBR article [Baptists and the Baptism Clause](https://www.centerforbaptistrenewal.com/blog/2024/6/20/one-baptism-for-the-remission-of-sins-baptists-and-the-baptism-clause)) . My question has to do with the origin of what looks like an expansion from the clause in the [Apostle's Creed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed) that merely states > "I believe in ... the forgiveness of sins, ...". **How did baptism become linked to that clause in the first place?** What debate / heresy precipitated this? Is "one" the keyword here (thus anticipating the Anabaptist controversy centuries later)? Why not leave it simply as "forgiveness of sins"? Who were the church fathers / theologians advocating for the expansion? Was it a deliberate expansion from the Apostle's creed, or was it added to the 325 Nicene Creed independent of it? Did the original meaning of that clause really have to do with "baptismal regeneration" or were the framers thinking of something else, such as emphasizing the word "for" (see [Gavin Ortlund's video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f41aB2y8CvQ&t=912s) for the many nuances and the associated Bible verses for each) ?

The Latin phrase Sola Scriptura means “by Scripture alone.” I understand that the phrase Nuda or Solo Scriptura means “Scripture alone.” There is a subtle but important difference and this is what I want to explore. **Sola Scriptura** was a key principle of the Reformation. It asserts that Scripture alone is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice. Reformers such as Luther and Calvin established that Scripture is the highest authority, but they also upheld the subordinate importance of historical creeds and confessions. Early church fathers, such as Augustine and Athanasius, affirmed the authority of Scripture while also contributing to theological debate that allowed the church to address heretical doctrines and clarify foundational Christian beliefs. **Nuda, or Solo Scriptura** upholds Scripture as the only authority, dismissing historical creeds, confessions, and biblical traditions as useless and nonbinding. My understanding is that advocates of Nuda or Solo Scriptura believe that the Bible should be interpreted apart from any external authority or influence, including the Apostles’ Creed, for example, or the Nicene Creed or the Westminster Catechism. My question is this: **What Christian denominations stand by Nuda or Solo Scriptura and what do they have to say about established creeds and confessions?** EDIT: I appreciate the suggestion that most Protestant denominations accept many of the older creeds. But some denominations reject them. My question asks if there are any such Christian denominations and, if so, why do they reject creeds such as the Apostles/Nicene and Athanasian, etc. **NOTE: I am asking about Nuda or Solo Scriptura**, not Sola Scriptura. The answer to this question delves into Nuda/Solo Scripture and is worth reading: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/78800/what-denominations-apply-the-doctrine-nuda-scriptura

In an attempt to define Protestantism one answer [suggested the following criteria](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/39419/is-non-catholic-non-orthodox-modern-western-denomination-an-ok-definition-of-p) : - an acceptance of the old ecumenical creeds - a focus on the Bible - a rejection of salvation by works - a rejection of the supreme authority of the Catholic Church - a focus on personal response to the gospel It strikes me that this excludes several important denominations that are considered Protestant in everyday parlance. Perhaps the most important is Methodism. The United Methodist Church [defines itself](https://um-insight.net/in-the-church/practicing-faith/omitting-hell-it-s-traditional/) as a "non-creedal" denomination. > Unlike some churches that require affirmation of a strict list of > beliefs as a condition of membership, The United Methodist Church is > not a creedal church... Church founder, John Wesley himself did not > agree with a historic (Athanasian) creed, because he disliked its > emphasis on condemning people to hell. Methodists do use the Nicaean Creed in some of their liturgies, but ministers and members are not required to affirm this or any other of the old ecumenical creeds. Indeed, as the above statement states, Wesley himself did not even agree with the Athanasian Creed let alone affirmations of faith made by the Ecumenical Councils. Those authorities condemned as heretics those who disagreed with their doctrines, yet [Wesley stated](https://johnmeunier.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/who-wesley-would-send-to-hell/) : > I have no authority from the word of God “to judge those that are > without;” (1 Corinthians 5:12) nor do I conceive that any man living > has a right to sentence all the heathen and Mahometan world to > damnation. It is far better to leave them to Him that made them, and > who is ‘the Father of the spirits of all flesh;’ who is the God of the > Heathens as well as the Christians, and who hateth nothing that he > hath made. Wesley and his followers have also been criticized by Calvinist writers of preaching "works righteousness," which would mean they fail to conform with another one of the criteria listed above. This criticism, however, is not accepted by Methodists themselves, while its decision not to require adherence to the historical creeds is clear. That being the case, should Methodism be excluded from the category of Protestantism?

I realise there are some significant theological differences between LDS, Catholicism and Protestantism, mainly to do with the Trinity and the person of Jesus Christ. LDS doctrine recognizes Jehovah as the pre-mortal name of Jesus, who was created as a spirit son, before coming to earth as God the Son incarnate. This official [LDS article](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1988/03/comparing-lds-beliefs-with-first-century-christianity?lang=eng) says that after the deaths of Jesus Christ and the Apostles apostasy became widespread and “lasted until Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 and initiated the restoration of the fulness of the gospel.” I understand that the Church does not accept various creeds from the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. and that those creeds do not reflect the thinking or beliefs of “the New Testament church”. From this I can only conclude that they are neither Catholic nor Protestant. What then is the foundation for this “New Testament church”? Is it based on the New Testament of the Holy Bible, or is it based on other sources? If it is based on other sources, please name them. Edit: Please note I want the official LDS answer to this question, especially as to the basis of their "New Testament Church".

The Apostles' Creed says of Jesus : "...was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead..." If Jesus descended into Hell while his body lay dead and buried, he did so in spirit. So, what rose again from the dead on the third day, was his body. My question therefore is: According to Catholic Church, why does the Apostles'Creed not mention that Jesus rose again in body ?

Concerning the Nicene Creed, is Jesus equal to God the Father? If so I am a little confused because in Mark 10:18 >And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God. Also, if I recall the Holy Spirit comes down from the Father in Heaven during the baptism of Jesus, with the Holy Spirit descending on him as a dove in Matthew 3:13–17, Mark 1:9–11, and Luke 3:21–23. The temptation of Jesus, in Matthew 4:1 the Holy Spirit led Jesus to the desert to be tempted. The Spirit casts out demons in Exorcising the blind and mute man miracle but The Nicene Creed also says 'I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. In many instances, Jesus prayed to God the Father for the ability to perform miracles, asking his Father God in Heaven for a miracle. However, Jesus “breathed on them [the fearful disciples locked in the room] and said to them: 'Receive the Holy Spirit'” (Jn 20:22). Jesus gives the Spirit to the disciples after he “hands over the Spirit” to the women and the beloved disciple at the foot of the cross (Jn 19:30)

As a follow-up to previous questions, I'd like to know: **Do Christadelphians disagree with or "reinterpret" any phrases in the Apostles' Creed?** Here's the context: I'm listening to an audio series in which the [Apostles' Creed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed#English_translations) is used as the framework for "Christian theology," implying that those who believe the Apostles' Creed are orthodox. But in this series, non-trinitarians are not considered orthodox. This makes me wonder – how do certain non-trinitarian groups understand the Apostles' Creed? Do they accept it as written, or simply reject it? Or perhaps they accept it, but interpret particular phrases in ways that trinitarians don't? Here, I'm most interested in how early Christadelphian leaders, like [John Thomas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Thomas_(Christadelphian)) and [Robert Roberts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Roberts_(Christadelphian)) , viewed the creed. If they did not address the Apostles' Creed in their writings, I'd be interested in the analysis of more recent Christadelphian theologians (in overview style, if there is disagreement). Related: Same question for [Jehovah's Witnesses](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/62297/21576) , [Mormons](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/62297/21576) , [Oneness Pentecostals](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/62975/21576) , and [Swedenborgians](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/62395/21576) .

In chapter 26 paragraph 4 of the 1689 LBC , the authors called the pope the antichrist: >neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming What was the reasoning behind labeling a single man/office as **The** antichrist, when scripture itself does no such thing (and indeed says there will be more than one {1 John 2:18 })?

What influence did Greek philosophy have on the formation of orthodox Christian doctrine? Particularly, what Christian doctrines or paradigms of understanding God and reality can be traced to have been influenced by Greek thought?

Do Biblical Unitarians disagree with any phrases in the Apostles' Creed? Some Christians seem to think that those who believe the Apostles' Creed are orthodox. But many also seem to believe that non-Trinitarians are not orthodox. This makes me wonder – how do certain non-Trinitarian groups understand the Apostles' Creed? In particular, do Biblical Unitarians accept it as written, or simply reject it? Or perhaps they accept it, but interpret particular phrases in ways that Trinitarians don't? Related: Christadelphians , Mormons , Swedenborgians , Jehovah's Witnesses , Oneness Pentecostals .

We see Jesus telling in Mtt 12:40: > For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth. The Creed of the Apostles says that Jesus descended into hell after his death before he would rise again on the third day. We also read in I Pet 3:18-20: > For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits - to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. The mention of **after being made alive** by St. Peter in his epistle, prompts one to wonder whether Jesus'visit to the dead as mentioned in the Creed is the same as mentioned by Peter, and if it is, whether Jesus visited the ‘dead' in his living body, before his resurrection in front of the ‘living'? My question therefore is: **According to Catholic scholars, did Jesus descend into hell in his living body?**

What is the difference between the meaning of ‘**confession**’ and ‘**doctrine**’ in this context, and what their ‘**unity**’ is supposed to mean. I know based on my searches that ‘confession’ might mean something like *belief* or *system of beliefs*, and ‘doctrine’ might mean *principles* or *teaching*. But I want the meanings in the context of Christianity. > It is important to note that Kant did not deny ‘the preeminent > importance of its [theology’s] subject’, but that his problems with > this discipline were twofold. First, in his view theology falls > outside the scope of what can be established by means of human > rationality alone. As we have seen, this principal argument was not > new, since late medieval nominalists like Ockham had already claimed > that the principles of theology cannot be supported by natural > reason.30 Second, what was new was Kant’s political argument against > the way in which theological orthodoxy was used by the state for its > own interests. In fact, such (mis)use had become widespread ever > since the Peace of Augsburg in 1555 with its famous maxim *cuius regio > cuius religio,* which had turned religion into a means to bolster the > identity of the newly emerging nation states. From now on **unity of > confession and doctrine** often came to be enforced by the state, and it > was in this context that the notion of theology as queen of the > sciences got its most articulate meaning (one should note that a queen > was, first of all, a political figure). Apparently, it was this > political constellation that, quite understandably, sparked Kant’s > deep dissatisfaction with the academic status quo in general and the > role of theology in particular. > > *How Theology Stopped Being* Regina Scientiarum—*and How Its Story Continues* Gijsbert van den Brink [Studies in Christian Ethics](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0953946819868092) 13 August 2019