glorybe, I fully agree that "the CHRISTIANS "FAITH" is in "THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD", their LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST". But if there's no standard definition of what that means, if it's left up to each individual to come up with their own definition regardless of what anyone in the past or present thinks, only doctrinal and spiritual chaos is the result. A Mormon can claim "I have faith in the Son of the living God, the Lord Jesus Christ", a Baptist can claim it, a Muslim can claim it, a Satanist can claim it, a New-Ager can claim it, and an insane person referring to his rubber duck can claim it - but all have different definitions in mind. Having "faith in the Son of the living God, the Lord Jesus Christ" is worthless if the definition is wrong - and if everyone is left up to himself to arrive at his own definition (based on his own fallible understandings), there is no way to determine who, including oneself, is deceived. The Creeds provide the standard, universal definition for the universal Christian church, thus by definition to reject the Creeds is to be outside of that universal Christian church (and also to imply that despite your own fallibility, you are smarter, more knowledgeable, a better interpreter, and more spiritual than the rest of the entire body of Christ). Not only is that logically foolhardy, it is the height of arrogance.

Consider if we were talking about the definition of the NT canon instead of the definition of the Trinity. The NT canon was also laid out in universal Creeds. If we reject those and instead have everyone rest solely on what scripture says, it would be up to everyone not only to define the NT canon for themselves, but thus even what is "scripture" itself in the first place. Do you honestly think that's what Christ wants us to do? I don't, but that's the logical conclusion of what you and Jerry are arguing for.

Brian