I have recently read two books
by the late Samuel Miller, one on Infant Baptism and the other on the
importance of Creeds and Confessions. Inspired by the latter, we are going to
begin a series of posts addressing the importance of creeds and confessions of faith.
This series of posts will begin by delineating the importance of creeds and
confessions. We will then attempt to respond to several of the key objections urged
against the use of creeds and confessions. Finally, we will conclude by looking
at some of the practical ramifications of the arguments we have made and the objections
we have refuted. Right at the outset, I wish to acknowledge how indebted I am
to Miller’s lecture which was published in 1821.
Perhaps to start with what we
should do is define what we mean by a creed, or confession of faith. Simply
put, a creed or a confession is a presentation in human language of the great
doctrines which are believed by its framers to be taught in the Scriptures.
These are drawn out in regular order for the purpose of determining how far
those who wish to unite in church fellowship are really agreed in the
fundamental principles of Christianity. It should be obvious from that
statement that we do not claim creeds or confessions to be the law of the house
of God, but rather summaries extracted from the Scriptures of the great and
principal doctrines of the Gospel.
To this end, I would like to
submit a number of arguments for the importance of the use of both creeds and
confessions of faith.
1. Without a creed explicitly
adopted it is impossible to show how the ministers and members of any particular
church, and more especially, of a large denomination of Christians, can
maintain unity among themselves.
It appears to me to be
impossible to overstate the importance of this point. As Samuel Miller points
out, if every Christian were a mere insulated individual who acted for himself
alone, no creed would be necessary for his advancement in knowledge or holiness.
He could simply sit down with his Bible, open it, and read it, and have
everything needed for his own edification. But the case is far different in
fact. The church is a society. The church is a body. No matter how extended it
is, it is one body in Christ and all who are members of it are members of one
another. Scripture commands members of that church to maintain the unity of the
Spirit in the bond of peace. They are also commanded to stand fast in one
spirit with one mind. We are further commanded to all speak the same thing and
be of one accord and of one mind. If the unity of the Spirit is as important as
Scripture says he is, one must then ask, “How can two walk together unless they
be agreed?” Is it really possible to have unity amongst a body of believers
composed of Calvinists, Arminians, Pelagians, Arians and Modalists? How could
such a body pray? How could such a body preach and attend the sacraments
together with such disparate views of every essential doctrine of the Christian
faith?
Directly linked to this is the 2nd issue, namely: How is a church to avoid the guilt of harboring and
countenancing heresy? We all know it is not sufficient to make everyone say, or
accept it when everyone says, “I believe in the Bible.” The real question is not
whether you believe in the Bible, but rather - what do you believe the Bible to be teaching
when you say you believe it. There is no question but that there are countless
people who call themselves Christians and profess to take the Bible as their
guide, who hold opinions on key doctrines as far as the east is from the west from other
people who equally call themselves Christians and equally profess to take the
Bible as their guide. This is precisely what a creed or Confession of faith
enables the church and the denomination to do.