6. Generally speaking, the
most ardent opposers of creeds and confessions have been latitudinarians, if not
heretics.
This is not to say that the
use of creeds or confessions has never been opposed by people who were
substantially orthodox. But it is to say that such a rejection of the use of creeds
and confessions is a relatively recent circumstance. We have no example of it
in earlier church history. Neither is this to say that heretics have not formed
and maintain their own corrupt creeds. Church history abounds with examples of
this as well. But what we are asserting is this, as a general fact the most ardent
and loud opponents of creeds have been those who held corrupt opinions. This
should not strike us as a fortuitous occurrence. This is exactly what we should
expect. This is exactly what the underlying principle should logically develop
into.
In the early 19th century, the loudest opponent of the use of creeds and confessions was the
denomination of the Unitarians. Is it any wonder that those who hold doctrines
which are demonstrably un-scriptural should refuse to accept a formula which
tends to make visible the line of distinction between truth and error? It has
often been observed that men are seldom found to oppose creeds until the creeds
and become opposed to them.
If we look a little into
church history, especially within the last 200 years we find this strikingly
exemplified. Whenever we find a group of men beginning to slide away from
orthodoxy, they generally try to conceal their fall by speaking against creeds
and confessions. And that is because it is these documents that will expose how far they have deviated from sound doctrine.
No comments:
Post a Comment