I don’t see how being a “creedalist” is in any way damning, disqualifying, or diminishing. There’s the what the Bible says and what we say it says. The creed is simply what we say the Bible says. It provides an interpretive lens. Irenaeus’s argument against the gnostics in Against Heresies was that they can cite scripture to back their points as easily as anyone. Indeed, the devil is a fine “biblicist” when he wants to be. What neither the gnostics nor the devil can do is square their use of the scripture with the rule of faith.
Since I first heard his arguments against total fulfillment, Sandelin has always demonstrated a shallow capacity for understanding scripture, espousing creeds rather than Christ. Very sad to see him continuing this path.
I don’t see how being a “creedalist” is in any way damning, disqualifying, or diminishing. There’s the what the Bible says and what we say it says. The creed is simply what we say the Bible says. It provides an interpretive lens. Irenaeus’s argument against the gnostics in Against Heresies was that they can cite scripture to back their points as easily as anyone. Indeed, the devil is a fine “biblicist” when he wants to be. What neither the gnostics nor the devil can do is square their use of the scripture with the rule of faith.
I’m happily a creedal biblicist.
I’ll take it!
Since I first heard his arguments against total fulfillment, Sandelin has always demonstrated a shallow capacity for understanding scripture, espousing creeds rather than Christ. Very sad to see him continuing this path.