Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 9
He criticizes orthodoxy “turning on” a non-biblical word (homoousian) and later claims that calling creeds “inspired of God” adds a new authority source beyond Scripture; where do you see modern churches effectively requiring extra-biblical shibboleths for “real Christian” status, and how is that different from the Apostles’ Creed boundary he describes?
Another way to ask: Where do churches today require extra tests (not clearly in the Bible) to count someone as a “real Christian”? How is that different from using the Apostles’ Creed as a basic boundary?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The transcript doesn’t name specific modern “shibboleths,” but it does provide a test: Berceau contrasts the early boundary of the Apostles’ Creed with later demands for precise, extra-biblical terms and additional authoritative requirements—suggesting modern churches should examine where they likewise make non-scriptural markers decisive.
- He’s bothered that “Orthodoxy turns on…Homo Ousian,” “a word that’s not in the Bible,” even while calling it a valid description.
- He objects to requiring that word as a condition: early Christians “would have never insisted” on it.
- He says some later Christians claimed the Creed was “inspired of God,” which to him means “another source of authority beyond the scriptures.”
- He contrasts this with the early church’s stated principle: “accept nothing new as doctrine other than what was handed down by the apostles.”
- He defines early minimum theology as essentially the Apostles’ Creed: “all the theology you had to believe to be a member in good standing.”