4. Another objection brought
against creeds and confessions is that they have largely failed to answer the
purpose professed to be intended by them.
It is no secret that there are
churches, and by churches I mean denominations, that are creedal and
confessional, but whose current doctrine and practice, is in direct opposition
to their stated confessions. Take for example the Church of England. For nearly
300 years she had a set of Articles that were decidedly Calvinistic. All of the
candidates for her ministry were required to subscribe to these. But for about
200 years now Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism have polluted this important
branch of the Reformed Church. In more recent times, nearly every form of
heresy and aberrant doctrine has appeared in her communion. The same can be
said for the Church of Scotland, who has a ministry far from being unanimous in
loving and honoring her public standards. Now, if creeds have not produced the
benefit intended by them, even in the most favorable cases, why bother with
them at all?
This objection proceeds on the
principle that a remedy which does not accomplish everything is worth nothing.
Because creeds haven't completely banished dissension and discord in the
churches which have adopted them, therefore they have been of no use. Is this
sound reasoning? Does it concur with common sense? The Constitution of the
United States has not completely defended our country from political animosity
and strife. Is it therefore useless? Is it therefore worthless?
The proponents of this
objection will contend that creeds are unnecessary because the Bible is amply
sufficient for all purposes as a test of truth. My cheap answer to this
statement is, “Has the Bible banished dissension and discord from the church?”
No one would ever pretend that it has. Yet why not? It is certainly not on
account of any error or defect in the Bible, but on account of the perverseness
of depraved man, who in spite of all the provisions of infinite wisdom
constantly wars against the peace of the world.
But in fact the case is actually the opposite.
And history proves the practical influence of creeds. The Calvinistic 39
Articles of the Church of England kept her doctrinally pure to a remarkable
degree for a very long time. During the reign of James I, very few opponents of
Calvinism dared to publicly air their opinions, and those who did were either
severely disciplined, or they kept their opinions to themselves. The inroads of
error were indeed blocked by the Church's faithful adherence to the 39
Articles. It was not until years after the Synod of Dordt, through the
influence of Archbishop Laud, that Arminianism was gradually and secretly
brought in. In the process of this change the faithful application of the 39
Articles as a test of orthodoxy and admission to the ministry, was discontinued.
The Articles still continued to be subscribed, but the spirit of administration
under them was no longer the same. Hence the church became predominantly
Arminian. In short, the creed of the Church of England, i.e., The 39 Articles,
operated as an effective bond of union and barrier against heresy as long as it
was faithfully applied in the manner for which it was originally designed. When
it was no longer used the way it was supposed to be, it ceased to produce the
desired effect. Why should anyone be surprised by this? That's like questioning
the effective of a medicine that you didn't take. It's not the aspirin's fault
that you still have a headache if you have refused to take it.
I would go even further with your example of the Church of England. When you mention Archbishop Laud, you should remember that he was a political appointee. he did not rise to his position through the organs of the church. James I was still fairly orthodox, due to his training prior to his accession to the throne. However, his son and grandsons turned from that faith to mere political expediency. In fact, his grandson, James II, was Catholic. It was that political interference that changed the Church of England from a confessional Reformed and Evangelical church to a latitudinarian organ of the state.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment, Chris. You are definitely correct, and I appreciate the extra historical information.
ReplyDeleteMy point is primarily that any creed or confession of faith (such as the 39 Articles) only serves its purpose when it is actually implemented. Once the church quits using it, for whatever reason, political or theological, the confession no longer protects the church from error as it was intended to do.