What I Believe
Westminster Creed
- I believe man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever;
- I believe God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth;
- I believe there is but one true and living God; that there are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and that these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory;
- I believe God has foreordained whatever comes to pass; that God made all things of nothing, by the word of His power, in the space of six days, and all very good; and that God preserves and governs all His creatures and all their actions;
- I believe our first parents, though created in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, sinned against God, by eating the forbidden fruit; and that their fall brought mankind into an estate of sin and misery;
- I believe God determined, out of His mere good pleasure, to deliver His elect out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a redeemer;
- I believe the only Redeemer of God’s elect is the Lord Jesus Christ, who, being the eternal Son of God, became man, and so was, and continues to be, God and man in two distinct natures, and one person, forever;
- I believe Christ, as our Redeemer, executes the office of a prophet, of a priest, and of a king;
- I believe Christ as our Redeemer underwent the miseries of this life, the wrath of God, the cursed death of the cross, and burial; He rose again from the dead on the third day, ascended up into heaven, sits at the right hand of God, the Father, and is coming to judge the world at the last day.
- I believe we are made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ, by the effectual application of it to us by his Holy Spirit;
- I believe God requires of us faith in Jesus Christ, and repentance unto life to escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin;
- I believe by His free grace we are effectually called, justified, and sanctified, and gathered into the visible church, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation;
- I believe that we also are given in this life such accompanying benefits as assurance of God’s love, peace of conscience, joy in the Holy Ghost, increase of grace, and perseverance therein to the end; that at death, we are made perfect in holiness, and immediately pass into glory; and our bodies, being still united in Christ, rest in their graves, till the resurrection; and at the resurrection, we shall be raised up in glory, we shall openly be acknowledged and acquitted in the day of judgment, and made perfectly blessed in the full enjoying of God to all eternity.
In addition to this creed, I affirm the following documents as representing the Christianity expressed by the Holy Scriptures:
Is this my former piano student at Kinross?
David McKay
March 20, 2007 at 7:29 pm
No XXXIX Articles? Nicene Creed? You do go to an Anglican church, don’t you?…
Byron
April 5, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Number III has always bothered me.
exagorazo289
April 28, 2007 at 8:05 am
“I believe God has foreordained whatever comes to pass;[...] and that God preserves and governs all His creatures and all their actions.”
“I believe our first parents [...] sinned against God”
Well how does that work. You can’t blame them really, can you? They were set up to fail. Nothing fair about that.
Ian
July 24, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Thanks for commenting, Ian. It is an interesting question you raise. My answer would probably depend on what you believe.
Do you believe in the God of the Bible? If so, then I would point you to Romans 9:19-21. Paul anticipates your very argument, and has an interesting answer for you.
If you do not believe in the God of the Bible, then there really is no way I can tell you why or how it is fair for me to believe this. I believe the Bible is God’s word, and His word tells me that he is sovereign, and we are responsible. All I can say is repent of your sin and believe.
exagorazo289
July 24, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Repent of my sin? How very presumptuous of you. Whether I have sin or not is between me and my belief system. FWIW, I believe that it’s okay for everyone to believe whatever they want to believe. But it’s most definitely not okay to tell other people what they should believe.
Ian
July 25, 2007 at 8:42 am
Well, according to my Christian worldview, all people everywhere are sinners, who need to repent and turn to Christ. It would be outside the bounds of my entire worldview to tell you anything different, so I guess being presumptuous has nothing to do with it.
I also believe that it’s ok for people to believe whatever they want, they can believe that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden if they want, but that doesn’t make it true. My worldview and beliefs are based on the truth that Jesus Christ, the only son of God, came to die for sinners.
Just because you think that it’s not right for me to tell you that your attitude will send you to hell doesn’t make the statement itself false.
exagorazo289
July 25, 2007 at 10:42 am
“Just because you think that it’s not right for me to tell you that your attitude will send you to hell doesn’t make the statement itself false.”
Sure. But nor does it make it true.
“[...]they can believe that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden if they want, but that doesn’t make it true.”
Absolutely.
“My worldview and beliefs are based on the truth that Jesus Christ, the only son of God, came to die for sinners.”
So if the person who believes in fairies at the bottom of the garden says that their belief is based on the truth that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, does that suddenly make it universally and factually true ? Does it entitle them to say they are right and other person is wrong? It’s easy to lay claim to truth, but laying claim does not make it so. Neither for the fairy believer nor for anyone else.
To say that you’re happy for people to believe whatever they want – but if they believe differently to you it’s wrong – is not tolerance. It’s precisely the sort of religious intolerance that leads to wars and persecution, often over remarkably trivial details (eg, disputes between different branches of christianity).
Ian
July 25, 2007 at 12:09 pm
“Sure. But nor does it make it true.”
Of course not, and I never implied that. But we are agreed that there is something that we can call truth, then. It is not true that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, and there is a truth out there to be grasped and understood.
“So if the person who believes in fairies at the bottom of the garden says that their belief is based on the truth that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, does that suddenly make it universally and factually true ? Does it entitle them to say they are right and other person is wrong? It’s easy to lay claim to truth, but laying claim does not make it so. Neither for the fairy believer nor for anyone else.”
As I said above, I am not saying that because it is my worldview it must be true. What I was stating was that to be consistent in my own worldview, I must view you as a sinner in need of repentance. Do you agree with that? In order to be a Christian, it necessarily leads on to the fact that I am going to believe you and I are both sinners. So therefore, I am not presuming anything. I am moving from the presuppositions of my own worldview to the propositions I believe.
“To say that you’re happy for people to believe whatever they want – but if they believe differently to you it’s wrong – is not tolerance. It’s precisely the sort of religious intolerance that leads to wars and persecution, often over remarkably trivial details (eg, disputes between different branches of christianity).”
By your own words, you are intolerant. If you believe that it is wrong for me to be intolerant in my worldview, you are showing the same intolerance I show when I say you are wrong to dismiss my worldview as untrue.
Also, wars have been fought by Christians and non-Christians alike for centuries. So what? Does this dismiss my worldview? Of course not, in fact it supports it.
I’d like to know exactly what you believe. Do you believe in a transcendent god? It sounds to me like you don’t, but I want to hear exactly what you believe (or don’t believe) before we move on.
exagorazo289
July 25, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Of course not, and I never implied that. But we are agreed that there is something that we can call truth, then. It is not true that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, and there is a truth out there to be grasped and understood.
Well, sort of yes sort of no. The question of fairies can be resolved very simply by actually producing one. If the same burden of proof were put upon the organised religions, there would be no basis for argument. But clearly religion is a matter of faith, which means “belief without proof”. I don’t have a problem with that, as long as the lack of rationality is acknowledged.
What I was stating was that to be consistent in my own worldview, I must view you as a sinner in need of repentance. Do you agree with that?
Absolutely – well said.
But that doesn’t mean I’m going to hell. See previous comments re faith.
By your own words, you are intolerant.
Yeah, okay you got me – I’m intolerant about intolerance.
I’d like to know exactly what you believe. Do you believe in a transcendent god?
Sure. Probably. Hard not to when you look out the window. But one needs to distinguish between the creations of a supreme being, and the creations of man. The organised religions are a creation of man. To believe anything else is a matter of faith.
Ian
July 25, 2007 at 2:44 pm
What kind of evidence would be enough for you to accept that the triune God of the Christian Scriptures is real?
exagorazo289
July 26, 2007 at 1:48 pm
That’s a really good question, and probably cuts to the core of the whole issue.
Something along the lines of Mount Rushmore would do the job. (I jest, of course).
It’s really hard to say. I believe Kevin Rudd exists, even though I’ve never seen him myself other than via intermediaries . I guess the reason I believe Kevin exists is because I know, if I cared to, I could get in the car and drive to somewhere he’s going to be, and poke him in the ribs and see what he says. In that way, its the same reason I don’t believe in unicorns.
In some ways, it’s easier to say what I would not find to be persuasive evidence. I don’t find self-referential arguments convincing, and in that sense I don’t find the bible convincing. It’s the work of man. Yeah, it’s supposed to be the word of god, but that’s just men saying that. A document which relies upon itself for proof of itself doesn’t really do it.
Some might say the axiomatic proof of the matter is that which occurred in Jerusalem 2000-odd years ago. But those matters were written down long afterward and have been editorialised along the way. The written record is a work of man, not god. It was a human decision at the Council of Nicaea in 325 whether Jesus should be the son of god or just a really good bloke.
Some might say that the men at Nicaea and the men who edit the bible have their hearts guided by god, so its not really the work of man. But that just becomes self-referential and by extension could be used to support or justify almost anything one could imagine.
None of which answers the question, I know. But I think it comes back to the definition of “faith”, which is “belief without evidence”. I’m happy for people to believe whatever they want without evidence, as long as they don’t get cross at me for not buying in to whatever their particular thing is.
Ian
July 26, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Well, there are a couple of things you’ve said that I have to disagree with.
To start; yes, there was a vote on Jesus’ divinity at the council of Nicaea. Why was a vote necessary? Dan Brown would have us believe that it was to establish an idea not previously thought about. However, we know differently. The vote at Nicaea was a side issue, brought up by a heretic called Arius. The vote against his views was overwhelming, as it was obviously a well established doctrine by 325. See the writings of the church fathers, especially Irenaeus.
Second, faith is not “belief without evidence”. “The Bible gives a far better definition:
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
(Heb 11:1)
Faith, in the Bible’s definition, is intrinsically tied with your presuppositions. I have faith that Jesus Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead, not because I like to ignore evidence, but because my presuppositions lead me to interpret all evidence in a certain way. I see the world around us, the Bible, and the experiences of Christians worldwide as perfect evidences of the existence of the Triune God and His continual upholding of the world.
However, your presuppositions are very different to mine. You, from the get go, do not accept the Bible, creation or extistential evidence as evidence at all, and in doing so you illustrate the way that our two worldviews cannot be reconciled. I look at creation and see God’s providence and execution of His decrees in a way that benefits His people throughout time, whereas you see “creation” as an abstract formation of matter moving towards no specific goal.
I am not saying that these differences necessarily prove either of our worldviews to be correct or incorrect. All I am saying is that the nature of evidence, as you have acknowledged in your last post, is not as clear cut as most atheists and agnostics would like to have us think.
So what, then, should we do? We should judge each worldview on its objective merits. Does agnosticism/atheism present us with a worldview with which to interpret the world we have around us in a consistent way? I believe not. Not on it’s objective materialistic merits. Does Christianity? Christianity is the only worldview which is consistent with what we see of nature, man and unseen things like rationality, logic and morality.
As a Christian, I believe that all of nature points to the God of Scripture (Psalm 19:1-3), but that all men by nature supress that (Romans 1:19-21). The use God’s good gifts – creation, logic, rationality etc. – to deny His existence and goodness. This is irrational, illogical and dishonest, and is a sin that needs to be repented of. Christ came to die for such men (Romans 5:7-8), and to establish his reign over his covenant people. This is why I call you, and all men, to repent and believe.
exagorazo289
July 27, 2007 at 8:27 am
But quoting the bible in support of itself is a self-referential belief system in its purest form.
“[...] my presuppositions lead me to interpret all evidence in a certain way. I see the world around us, the Bible, and the experiences of Christians worldwide as perfect evidences of the existence of the Triune God [...]“
Self-referential belief system.
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”
I don’t really understand how that is any different to belief without proof. Surely they mean the same thing.
“You, from the get go, do not accept the Bible, creation or extistential evidence as evidence at all [...]“
Absolutely correct – I do not accept the bible as proof of itself. To do so is to enter into a self-referential belief system.
It sounds a bit like you’re classifying me as an agnostic or an atheist, but the world is more complex than that. It’s entirely possible to believe in a supreme being without buying into the imaginings of man. Obviously the universe exists, and that’s a pretty neat trick. There’s various aspects of the universe (not eyeballs and flagella – things in mathematics and physics) that make one go “hmmmm”. But it’s a far leap from suspecting that the universe was constructed to all that goes with the organised religions and the various man-made rules they impose on man.
Ian
July 27, 2007 at 8:56 am
So a belief system cannot refer to itself in order to be correct? Sorry, but that is just plain wrong. By your logic, I could not say that I know that the sun is coming up tomorrow because it has risen every other day. Is that logic self referential? Of course. One cannot make an epistemological argument without making self-referential claims.
Are you saying that nothing can be proven with induction? That is a very interesting position given the position that you take on evidence.
I am perfectly happy to say that the Bible is the word of God, not only because it says it is, but also because it is self proving. The worldview contained in the Bible provides the roots for life as we know it. Without the basis of the knowledge of the Triune God, we have no way to establish things like morality, logic or rationality.
But really, I cannot argue you into becoming a Christian. It is not my job to convert you, but the work of God himself. Why did you come here? I pray that what I’ve written about shows you the foolishness of hiding from the God who created the world, and Jesus, who will return one day.
exagorazo289
July 27, 2007 at 9:11 am
A self-referential belief system is a nonsense. Your example of the sun rising illustrates clouded, muddy thinking. I can use a self-referential belief system to “prove” the existence of pixies at the bottom of the garden (within my self-referential worldview that pixies exist).
Without a triune god, I certainly can establish what is moral and what is not. Not a problem, easily done. I don’t need to be told by some else.
As for logic and rationality, there’s little room for that in a self-referential belief system, particularly one that says you’ve got to be within the belief system to establish logic and rationality.
It’s been an interesting and diverting dialogue, but no, you haven’t shown me the foolishness of failing to adhere to the rules some bunch of men say you have to adhere to. I guess what we have managed to illustrate is the futility of discussions such as these. But we probably already knew that.
Honestly, if believing what you believe provides you succor and eases your way through the world, then that’s seriously great – I’m very happy for you. Just don’t proselytise to me.
Ian
July 27, 2007 at 12:20 pm
You are wrong in thinking what you do. I’m not saying that you cannot set up preconditions for morality and logic outside of the Christian worldview; what I am saying is that you cannot justify using these things without borrowing from my worldview. In my worldview, God defines what is truth, and what is not. In your worldview, you do. Given what you believe, why should I follow your rules of logic and morality? Why should you follow mine? You cannot account for anything universal, like logic, rationality or morality.
You can be rational. You can be logical. You can be moral. However, you can’t set up satisfying preconditions for why you can. You prove the Bible correct yet again when you assume you can be a moral, rational, and logical creature without acknowledging the creator of these things.
I am glad that God saw fit to bring you here (and lets remember, you came here, I am totally within my bounds to defend myself and proselytise). It has yet again proven to me the folly of believing in the autonomy of man.
I pray that God convicts you of this sin, and brings you to the foot of the cross, where Christ’s precious blood was spilt for sinners such as you and me.
exagorazo289
July 27, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Gee, thanks very much for that.
Ian
July 27, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Vaughan, I haven’t heard from you for a while, but I’m hoping I can continue to chat with you.
I’m guessing you have ditched facebook and our game of scrabble.
David McKay
October 11, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Way to go Vaughan, that has to be THE most encouraging debate I’ve ever read. I can only say i admire you and Alison so much, both for your unwavering faith and your ability to back up everything you believe when faced with (seemingly) such a strong opposition. Love both you guys a whole lot, i only wish i had half the passion you possess and your willingness to step out and confront those in need of saving.
kyle delph
November 6, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Wow, that was a very interesting read! Thanks Vaughan and Ian. I applaud you Ian for coming back and defending your point of view. As for you Vaughan, like you said earlier: this is your “space” and i guess you’re expected to defend yourself. Well done though!
Mary
December 13, 2008 at 6:39 pm