I appreciate your honesty and your attitude. I really disagree with your (and most
Baptist traditions) take in church history. Fortunately, we worship the same God.
I don't reconize the Nicean Creed as having any validation and have never heard it refered to in church.
Most Catholic, Orthodox, Anglicans, and I think Lutherans recite the Nicene Creed each
week in their services. That's more than three-quarters of churches that are called Christians.
More importantly, the Nicean Creed is the historical test of genuine Christianity as opposed to Gnosticism and host of other heresies during its time. The Creed has had
staying power all this time.
It came after the close of scripture so it is only the opinion of men.
I understand what you are saying, but you and many evangelicals have reduced the Christian faith to a book. I believe in a living God who works through history. History is a record of how God works.
I believe in the literal inspired word of God as found from Genesis to Revelation.
No argument here.
The majority of the church had gone off the rails before the 4th century but has now been restored to what God intended.
I know you are not alone in believing this, but was the church really lost for more than
1000 years? Doesn't this invalidate Jesus's promise that the gates of Hades will not
prevail against it?
Here is the truth, IMHO: Those radical Reformationists and other Protestants leaders didn't know what to do when their reading of Scripture contradicted with what the early church taught. Rather than agree with the early church, they proclaimed their own doctrine as not only divine but the teaching of the early church. Talk about traditions of men.
The other major problem with this viewpoint is who came up with the idea of a New Testament? Those same people you (and others) say went off the rails.
So, according to your view, the early church goes apostate very early on, but at the end of the 4th century, it comes out of its apostate funk to decide which books should be in the New Testament. Then, falls back into their bad ways.
The argument of some is the now-apostate church was affirming what was obvious (the books that belong in the New Testament). There were many books and lists that were floating about in those times. The list of books was not so obvious. Even so, if the church were so apostate, how could they be trusted to compile the Word of God?