Creeds and Confessions, Practical Implications, Part 5

We conclude this series discussing the usefulness of creeds and confession by looking at the final two practical inferences which are derived from our defense of creeds and confessions and our refutation of objections.

In short, the final two inferences are these:

A. It is a duty of great importance for all members, but especially the ministers, to study and to spread the knowledge of their church's creeds and confessions of faith. We pointed out before the creeds and confessions of faith lend themselves to a serious study of scriptural doctrine. Happy is the church which has the backbone and the fortitude to require their minister to believe and preach what he has subscribed to. And happy is the minister who has a doctrinally literate congregation.

And secondly,

B. It is a sad mistake to think that by abandoning creeds and confessions we are rendering the Church any essential service. Ever since the days of the apostles, the Church has found it necessary to adopt formal statements of doctrine as a test of orthodoxy for both members and ministers. What service can one possibly render to the Church by removing her ability to delineate between truth and error?

 

Creeds and Confessions, Practical Implications, Part 4

Our defense of the use and utility of creeds and confessions leads us to a fourth practical implication. 

From all we have established so far, it is easy to see how a single imprudent or unsound minister can do extensive and irreparable mischief in the church. If this minister be a man of talents and influence he can with great ease by addressing popular feeling and availing popular prejudices, do more harm in a short time then he could do good in a long time by a faithful and diligent application of all of his talents and skills. Think of the widespread havoc that has been wreaked upon the entire body of Protestant evangelicalism at the hands of a single man: Jacob Arminius. The progress and fruitfulness of the Reformation was hampered and hindered as a result of this one talented man's obstinate adherence to error. The history of the church abounds with examples of similar import: Marcion, Mane, Nestorius, Eutychus, Sabellius, Arius, Pelagius, Valentinius, the list could go on and on. In some cases, the church is still reeling from the wounds inflicted by these men.

Large portions of 'respectable' Evangelicalism arre infected with the Gnosticism of Mane. Marcion's bifurcation of the covenant of grace survives to this day from the low esteem in which the Old Testament is held by countless Christians to the radical discontinuity of the covenant exhibited in Dispensationalism. Why would we refuse to use a useful tool to stymie and quell the negative influence of false teachers?

Creeds and Confessions, Practical Implications, Part 3

A third practical inference from our foregoing defense of creeds and confessions is this:

We may determine how an honest man should act after subscribing to a public creed and confession. Once a man has subscribed publicly to confession of faith in order to attain a position of leadership in that church's ministry, he will feel it to be his duty to adhere sincerely and faithfully to that creed and confession publicly and privately. If at any time he should alter his views concerning any part of that creed or confession it is incumbent upon him to inquire whether the points in question are of such a nature is that he can conscientiously be silent about them and give no offense to the body to which he belongs. If this is possible, in other words, if he can reconcile this with enlightened sense of duty, then he may remain in place. If he can keep it to himself and perform his ministerial duties conscientiously, then he should shut and do his work. But if the points concerning which his views have changed are of so much importance in his estimation that he cannot be silent, and that he must propagate them, then he should quietly withdraw and join some other branch of the visible church where he can walk in a harmonious way. He has no right to insist on remaining and being permitted to publicly oppose what he has solemnly vowed to receive and support.

Someone might object that every man is under obligation to obey the great Head of the Church and that this obligation trumps anything which may bind him by ecclesiastical engagement to obey the church. In other words, he must obey God rather than men. But in this case, this is no objection at all. It has nothing to do with the subject under consideration. A man cannot bind himself always to believe as he now believes, but he can certainly promise that he will be a regular and orderly member of that body as long as he remains part of it. The moment he ceases to be able to do this, without sinning against God, if he be an honest man, he will silently withdraw.

Creeds and Confessions, Practical Implications, Part 2

Another implication or inference from all of our foregoing arguments is this:

Subscribing to a creed or confession is not a mere formality. It is a very solemn transaction, full of meaning, and inferring the most serious obligation. It ought to be entered upon the deep deliberation on prayer. Is there any sin more egregious than lying to the Holy Spirit? In other words, it is dishonesty and insincerity in the highest degree to seek membership in the church, or admission to her ministry, by knowingly harboring doctrines which are diametrically opposed to the doctrine to the church which is admitting you to membership ordaining you to ministry.

In all the forms of subscription used by churches that require it of their ministers, there are two parts. There is an affirmation that the minister will believe and affirm the doctrines contained in that church's confession of faith. But there is also a second part. The minister must also affirm that he will not oppose the doctrines contained in the church's confession of faith. In many cases, it seems that only the second part of the subscription has any force. I think it is clear though, that if we were to take this principle to the test of reason, to the test of Scripture, and the test of the original design of the confessions, it is horribly deficient. How can it be adequate to simply not teach error? How can it be acceptable and sufficient to simply not oppose one's own creed and confession of faith? If that minister were to practice this form of reasoning in a court of law, he would be deemed guilty of perjury. It is not enough to simply not speak against truth; a minister must proclaim the truth of the gospel as he sees it. In a minister must have the decency to relinquish his position of leadership in the church when the attaining and maintaining of that leadership hinges upon subscription to that church's articles of faith.

Creeds and Confessions, Practical Implications, Part 1

All that has been said so far regarding both the utility of creeds and confessions and the imaginary objections against them, leads us to a few practical inferences, the first of which is this:

We see how little reason we have to be afraid of creeds as “instruments of oppression.” Everyone dreams of being the hero who fights tyranny and oppression. But how anyone can connect these ideas with creeds and confessions anywhere in the free world is beyond me. No one in the United States, Canada, Mexico, or indeed any free country in Europe, Asia, or Africa, has ever had a gun put to their head forcing them to join any particular church and subscribe to their confession of faith. We all know people who have switched church affiliation and/or denomination several times, for good or for bad, because they have found substantial disagreement between themselves and the stated doctrine or practice of that church or denomination. Those of us who live in free countries have no hindrance in our way barring us from pulling up stakes and moving to another church whenever we find that doctrinal differences no longer allow us to fellowship with the peaceful conscience. There is no conceivable reason why a person should be admitted to a church when his or her admission will only cause discord because he or she holds doctrines which are subversive of their faith. There is no conceivable reason why a congregation or denomination should be forced to surrender their right of conscience and their liberty en masse simply to entertain the right of conscience and liberty of a dissenting applicant who can easily find plenty of other churches who promulgate his views. Rejecting creeds and confessions of faith because they supposedly lead to oppression and tyranny, in fact establishes oppression and tyranny.

Creeds and Confessions, Objections Answered, Part 5

5. The final objection that I wish to consider is that rather than producing unity and communion, subscription to creeds and confessions has been found to produce the opposite: discord and strife.

Some will claim that the creeds and confessions, rather than binding the members together in close unity, have in fact proven to be a bone of contention. They have been a means of provoking mutual charges of heresy. They had been the cause of ill feelings among those who might otherwise have been gotten along in harmony.

Again, those who assert this need a history lesson. My first reply to this alleged fact is that it is utterly false. It is not true that creeds have generated contention and strife in the churches which have adopted them. It would be easy to show that in churches where creeds and confessions have been most esteemed and regarded there has been union and peace in a remarkably high degree. The fact is that division and strife have only entered the church on the heels of an unfaithful regard to creeds and confessions. I would go one further and defy the opponent of creeds and confessions to show me a church, established without a creed or confession, which has a history of more than a few years without some form of internal division and strife.

My 2^nd remark would be this: even granting the false premise of this argument, that creeds and confessions are indirectly connected with conflict and contention in the church, it would still form no solid argument against their use. Whenever Christians in all ages have ardently devoted themselves to what they deemed to be truth, they have always adopted creeds and confessions of faith. Whenever Christians have found it necessary to defend the truth of Scripture against the incursions of heresy they have adopted formal statements of what they believe as a standard of measure and test of orthodoxy. To say that a sound, scriptural creed is the cause of division, turmoil and strife is tantamount to saying that medicine causes the disease it is intended to cure. The Bible commands us to contend earnestly for the faith and to hold him accursed who preaches another gospel. When such a contention becomes necessary, whose fault is it? It is certainly not the fault of the advocates of truth. It is the fault of the advocates of error who endeavor to corrupt the body of Christ. And it is their dissension and patronizing of error which renders the contention for truth a duty. We would not of course deny that in this conflict much unsanctified character may be on display on the part of those in error as well as the contenders for the truth. But this does not render the truth any less precious, nor does it render the duty of contending for the truth any less imperative.

An essential part of the peace of the Roman Empire was the mutual acceptance of various forms of paganism within the pale of the Empire. The foundation of this peace was the opinion that error was innocent and all classes of religions were equally safe. Enter Paul and the apostles proclaiming that there is no other system of truth and that there is no other means of salvation by faith in Christ, and the boat of peace and tranquility has been rocked. At heart, this is the root of all of the hatred and persecution against the church in those early centuries of Christendom. Now let me ask the burning question: Who are we to blame for the unspeakable scenes of horror and violence in those persecutions? We will, of course, not blame Christianity, but rather the corruption of human nature and the blindness and violence of pagan malice. If the early Christians had been willing to give up the truth and act on the principle that all modes of faith are equally safe, they would have escaped all of the dreadful persecution which they were called to endure.

The only thing I might farther say in this regard is that it seems to proceed on the assumption that error should never be confronted. Granted, Scripture commands us “if it be possible, as much as lies in us, to live peaceably with all men” (Rom. 12:18). But it is not possible to be at peace with some men. We cannot have peace with those who advocate error, wickedness, falsehood and shameful lusts. 

Creeds and Confessions, Objections Answered, Part 4

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.

Creeds and Confessions, Objections Answered, Part 3

A 3^rd objection often used against the subscription to creeds and confessions is that they are unfriendly and not conducive to free inquiry.

While this argument is as specious as the preceding two arguments, it strikes me as being more adolescent. This objection seems to suppose that a man who has taken on himself the solemn responsibility of being a public instructor of others, has not himself examined, with all due diligence and deliberation, the doctrinal standards of the church he proposes to lead. Is it not criminally weak on the part of this man to assume the role of instructor when he has no idea, or firm convictions regarding the substance of the faith he was hired to teach? Why is it desirable to suppose that he must remain in a suspended state of indecision? Is this not simply a denial of the knowability of truth? This is of course an absurd situation; and that for two reasons. (a) On the one hand, why teach at all if truth is unknowable? (b) And on the other hand, the statement that truth is unknowable, is itself a statement which professes to be true. Hence, if it is true, it is false!

This objection is sometimes proposed in a slightly different form. The objection is made against a man's making any public declaration of his views, either by preaching or in writing, lest he later obtain more light and yet be tempted to adhere, contrary to his conscience what he had previously espoused publicly. Does any preacher of the gospel, with any shred of honesty - or brains, think that it is his duty not to preach or express his opinions because he may afterwards change them? If a Mormon preacher changed his views and became orthodox, we would expect him to quit his job, to give up his salary, and seek employment with the church that holds his newfound views. We would expect the same of an evangelical who perverted to Rome. So what’s the big deal? Are we to assume that an honest man when he changes his mind on the subject of his religion will not also change his situation? Are we to assume that he must never make a public statement of what he believes, lest he should not always think as he presently does?

As I said earlier, I think this objection strikes at the very heart of the knowability of truth. As a former Arminian and Pentecostal I will be the last to deny that a man may change his views based on farther investigation of the contents of Scripture. But this is a far cry from saying that one should never publicly state his views lest he later receive new light and convert to views diametrically opposed to his former ones. To assert that it is desirable for any Christian, let alone a minister of the gospel, to remain in a state of perpetual indecision is tantamount to saying that the truth is subjective. As I have already asserted, for this to be true it must be false.

But there is a 2nd problem with this objection. It would appear that no advocate of this argument ever takes the trouble to see where his position will logically take him if consistently applied. If one were to remain logically consistent in the application of this principle he would have to hold that no parent should ever teach his children what he deems to be the most precious truths of the gospel, lest he fill the child's mind with prejudices and present an obstacle to free inquiry afterwards. There is no doubt that early parental instruction, more or less presents an obstacle in the way of a subsequent change of opinion on the subjects which that instruction embraced. 

Yet our Father in Heaven has expressly commanded us to instruct our children in everything that is excellent, both in principle and practice. So if this objection be valid, then no one should ever discharge any duty, for he may one day cease to think that it is a duty. Upon this principle, he ought to disobey God's plainest commands because he made someday entertain different views of those commands than he holds that the present. This form of argumentation not only applies to religious issues, but to practical secular issues as well. Should I cease from taking vitamins because I may one day come to believe that they are not as beneficial as I once assumed? Should I stop drinking water because dietitians haven't made up their minds how many glasses a day I should drink? Should all forms of education be abolished simply because we may come one day to hold views radically different than we do at present? As idiotic as all this sounds, this is where the force of this objection, if logically applied would take us.

Creeds and Confessions, Objections Answered, Part 2

2. The 2^nd objection frequently made against creeds and confessions is that they interfere with the rights of conscience and lead to oppression and tyranny.

Again, this is a very specious argument. Fleshed out, the argument looks like this: “What right has any church to impose a creed on me and dictate to me what I must believe? Such an attempt is tyranny, and submission to it is tantamount to surrendering the right of private judgment.”

Advocates of this objection need a history lesson. This objection would only have ground if creeds or confessions were imposed by the civil government with stiff penalties for any who did not agree. But such a case does not, and cannot exist in the free world. The objection is illegitimate in reasoning and false in fact. We are not talking about living under sharia law.

If a body of professing Christians has the right to associate and extract their own creed from the Scriptures, and to agree upon the principles by which others may join them, isn’t it also equally manifest that they have the same right to refuse admittance to those with whom they believe they cannot be in agreement?

Turning the situation around and viewing it from the other end will show exactly what I mean. Suppose a person comes to this body of Christians and demands admittance into their association while openly and vehemently declaiming against the doctrines they profess to embrace, and openly refusing to be governed by the rules they have agreed to adopt. What answer would they apt to give this person? They would say, “You are being unreasonable. Ours is a voluntary communion and one designed for our mutual spiritual benefit. We didn’t ask you to join us, and therefore you have no right to force yourself into our body. You have the whole wide world before you: go where you want. We cannot receive you unless you’re willing to walk with us upon our own principles.” Is this unreasonable? Is this tyrannical? Any reasonable person would deem this to be the proper response. Would anyone think this man had common sense if he were to claim that that he had been persecuted or injured? Of course not. This church, if they were compelled to receive him, would cease to be free themselves and would become his slaves.

The point is clear in the case of a ministerial candidate offering his services to the church. If they were to present to him a copy of their creed and confession, along with their form of government and worship, which they had unanimously adopted, and asked him whether he could subscribe to these or not, where is the so-called oppression and tyranny? They have not judged his status before God. They have not judged the reality of his profession of faith. They have imposed no ecclesiastical censure. He has not been injured or persecuted in any way. Aren’t the rights of conscience reciprocal? If they have the freedom of conscience to join together based on mutually agreed-upon principles of belief, why must they surrender this right of conscience for the sake of opponents of their views who wish to join their number? It is sheer insanity to charge them with oppression and tyranny. It is in fact the applicant who is the tyrant. If the members of the church or denomination have no right to agree upon the principles by which they will associate, and to refuse membership to those who are hostile to their principles, there is an end to all liberty. They have become slaves to the dictates of their enemies!

Someone might respond that the church is not actually a voluntary association, but a community instituted by Christ and that its laws are given by Him as its Head and Lord. The rulers of the church are in fact only stewards who must conform themselves and all that they do to His will. This is all true. The church cannot properly be regarded as a mere voluntary association in the same way that other societies may be viewed. The church is the property of Christ. His will is the basis of its establishment. And, of course, no one can be admitted or excluded from the church except upon the principles of His own Word. But none of this alters the reasoning of our foregoing argument. The union of Christians in the church state must still be a voluntary act. If it were not so, it would not be a moral act at all. If the union is voluntary then those who form it must be supposed to have a right to follow their own convictions as to what the Lord has revealed respecting the laws of their union. If they can't judge in this matter, who can? Has Christ, as Head of the Church, prescribed any qualifications as necessary for private membership or admission to the ministerial office of His church? If so, what are they? What degree of departure from purity of faith and practice is enough to exclude a man from membership or ministry? To whom has Christ committed the task of applying this law in any particular case? Does this task belong to the church as a body of believers voluntarily associating with each other on the basis of agreed-upon principles” Or, does it belong to applicants and/or those who refuse to subscribe because of dissenting views? Obviously, the church has no right to require assent to anti-scriptural principles. But freedom of conscience, and indeed liberty in any form, is destroyed and banished from the face of the earth if the voluntary associations of men must surrender their guiding principles to those who wish to join while adhering to contrary principles. This argument is false because it's insane. It charges the wrong side with tyranny. It is not the church who is guilty of oppression and tyranny; it is the dissident applicant who is the tyrant. He demands that the entire association of believers reject and repudiate their right to conscience so that he may practice his, when in fact he can go down the street and easily find groups who substantially agree with him. There is no other purpose in joining a group with whom you disagree except to limit and curtail their freedom and right of conscience.

Since Christ has authorized and commanded His church to excommunicate those who are heretical and immoral, as well as those who preach “another gospel,” then it is certainly clear that when the church acts upon this authority she is doing no one any injury. If the church excludes a private member from her communion or deposes a minister from office in the regular exercise of scriptural church discipline, she deprives neither of any natural right. She is only practically saying, “You can no longer be a minister or member with us in a way that is consistent with our views of either obedience to Christ or Christian edification. You can go be happy and helpful in any other way and in any other place. But we must take away the authority and privileges that we once gave you, because if you continue to exercise these, it will be subversive to the very principles we have solemnly pledged to support.” Is this unreasonable language? Is it oppressive and tyrannical? Would it be more just and more favorable to the rights of conscience if the individual could retain his place as a minister in this church contrary to their wishes and in subversion of their faith?

When a church uses a creed or confession in the way that we have described, as a bond of unity or barrier against heresy, in conformity to what they believe to be the will Christ, they are in reality - in the most enlightened way, and on the largest scale - maintaining the rights of conscience. If the church were to surrender their testimony to the truth, and to surrender their own comfort, peace, and edification for the sake of complying with the unreasonable demands of a corrupt individual, they would be subjecting themselves to a state of the worst kind of slavery. When the rights, interests, and happiness of the many are subjected to the dictation of one, this is the essence of tyranny.

Creeds and Confessions, Objections Answered, Part 1

We will now look at the principal objections which are advanced by the adversaries of creeds and confessions.

1. The first objection which is generally advanced against the use of creeds or confessions as a test of orthodoxy is that it is superseding the Bible and making a human composition a standard of faith.

Of all of the objections against the use of creeds or confessions this one is the most specious of all. When this objection is fully unpacked it usually runs like this: “The Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. It is complete and it needs no human addition. It is understandable and therefore needs no human explanation. Why then subscribe ourselves or call others to subscribe to any other creeds than this plain, inspired, and perfect declaration of truth? Doesn't the use of a creed or confession as a test of orthodoxy insult the Scriptures as a virtual declaration that it is not infallible or sufficient?” As I said at the beginning of this paragraph, this objection is the most specious of all objections urged against creeds and confessions.

The whole argument is founded on a false assumption. No Protestant has ever professed to regard his creed as of equal authority with the Scriptures, and certainly not of paramount authority. The creeds themselves reject this principle and so do all the defenses of creeds that had ever been written. We've already urged several times that all that the creed professes to be is an epitome, or summary of what the Scriptures teach. Because it professes to be deduced from the Scriptures, it refers to the Scriptures for all of its authority. Therefore when one subscribes to the creed or confession he is not dishonoring the Bible, he is rather paying public homage to it. By subscribing to that creed or confession, he is declaring how he understands the Bible, and what doctrines he considers the Bible to contain.

Let me summarize what I'm saying. Socinians profess to believe the Bible, but understand it to be teaching the mere humanity of Christ. Arians profess to believe the Bible, but understand it to be teaching that Christ is a mere creature, albeit the most exalted of creatures. Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians profess to believe the Bible, but interpret it in such a way as to denigrate the grace of God and magnify human nature. I profess to believe the Bible, and I believe with all my heart that it is the infallible word of God, the only perfect rule of faith and practice, and the only ultimate test of all controversies. And I believe it to teach the total depravity of human nature, the Deity of Christ, the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ, and regeneration and sanctification by the Holy Spirit. I profess these to be the fundamental principles of the plan of salvation. Now I ask: What is there in all these statements that is dishonoring to the Bible? What have I said to denigrate its ultimate authority? Haven’t I simply stated what I believe to be revealed in that Word? Documents such as the 3 Forms of Unity, the Westminster Standards, and the 39 Articles of the Church of England are chock-full of Scripture. Every sentence of every paragraph of every article reveals their dependence and subservience to the Bible.

As a subset of this argument it may be asked what right has any man, or church to interpose their authority to deal out the sense of Scripture for others. Is this not an improper assumption over the minds of our fellow men? I would argue that this reasoning proves too much, and therefore proves nothing. If we admitted the force this logic then all preaching of the gospel would be presumptuous, because preaching always consists in explaining and enforcing the meaning of Scripture – in the words of the preacher himself! This line of reasoning carried to its logical conclusion would force us to say that no minister of the gospel should do anything but simply read the very words of Scripture from the pulpit in the original languages. All translations of the Bible are the words which uninspired men have chosen to express the sense of the original words. So if we admit the objection that no man is at liberty to teach the revealed truth of Scripture in a way which undertakes to assert the sense of Scripture over the minds of others, then we must say that no man is at liberty to speak in the pulpit except he read the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Greek text of the New Testament. This is the logical and legitimate consequence of that erroneous argument.

In short, this whole line of argumentation is nothing but a red herring. It sets up a false premise, which it attacks, and then declares it has won the day. It is a sad day for your cause when the best you can do in your favor is to misrepresent your opponents and their positions.

Creeds and Confessions, A Defense, Part 7

7. My final argument in favor of the use of creeds and confessions is that the most fiery and zealous opponents to them virtually employ creeds and confessions in their own internal ecclesiastical proceedings.

The very people who constantly squawk against the use of a creed or a confession as a standard measurement of orthodoxy will themselves use something equivalent to a creed or confession when a doctrinal crisis emerges in their own communion. Have you ever heard of a wild-eyed Oneness Pentecostal church hiring a Calvinist preacher to be their pastor? Of course not. Why? There should be no issue here is these creed rejecters lived by their own principles. Doesn't the Calvinist preacher come with the Bible in his hand, professing to believe it as ardently as they do? Isn't that enough for these advocates of liberty of conscience? But we all know this will never happen. Before this church would consent to hire this man as they are preacher and spiritual guide they will want to know precisely how he interprets the Bible, which is another way to say, “What is his creed?” They want to know whether his confession of faith is substantially the same is theirs or not. And if it is not, he will not get the job. What is this but the principle of demanding subscription to a creed or confession carried out with as much rigor as the most ardent advocate of orthodoxy?

The only difference between this practice and the practice of those who are friends of creeds and confessions is that with those who advocate the use of creeds and confessions, theirs is a written doctrine. The rejecters of creeds and confessions demand subscription to their creed, albeit theirs, because it is not written can be applied in the most capricious and tyrannical manner against which there is no recourse.

There is no getting around this fact. The enemies of creeds cannot get along one day without one. It is very common to find the enemies of creeds saying, “No creed but the Bible.” But let us ask for a moment what a creed is. A creed is nothing more than an organized statement of what we profess to believe the Bible teaches. Opponents of creeds always argue that creeds are man-made, and for this reason they are unbiblical and therefore not binding upon believers. But this argument implodes under the weight of its own stupidity. What is “No creed but the Bible,” if not a man-made statement of what these people believe? The statement itself is not found in Scripture, and it can therefore be argued that it is unbiblical. In summary, “No creed but the Bible” is a creed!

In summary, the arguments in favor of the use of creeds and confessions are these: they serve as a basis of unity; they help the church be the guardian of truth she was established to be; they inform fellow believers and the watching world of what we in fact believe; they tend toward the informed study of the Bible; the early church's own example shows their utility in testing teachers and their doctrine; only heretics or latitudinarians have generally rejected them; even their opponents use them when push comes to shove.

Creeds and Confessions, A Defense, Part 6

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 19^th 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.

Creeds and Confessions, A Defense, Part 5

5. The Church's experience in all ages has found creeds and confessions to be indispensable.

Even in the days of the Apostles, there were those who were peddling a 'false gospel.' How did the Church respond to such a situation? Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote that Christians should not be content with a mere profession of belief in Christ, but that teachers should be examined to ascertain whether their doctrine accorded with the “form of sound words,” which he had taught them. Paul adds to this the fearful warning of a curse on the head of anyone who brings a message other than the one they had received from him. 

What we have here is, in effect, an instance – with Divine warrant, I might add – of employing a creed as a test of orthodoxy. A naked profession of belief in God or the Bible was insufficient. It had to be determined in what sense they understood the Gospel. The peculiar situation of the Church in that early age probably required a short and concise confession, but a confession nonetheless. Whether the confession Paul sought agreement with had one article or 100 is irrelevant; the principle is the same.

When we come to the 2^nd Century, in the writings of Irenaeus, or the 3^rd Century, in the writings of Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, and Gregory Thaumaturgus, we find creeds and confessions occupying a prominent place in the Church as a safe-guard against error. This is especially important when we remember that by this very standard, large swathes of both Tertullian's and Origen's works were ruled unorthodox by their contemporaries and later generations. 

By the time we get to the 4^th Century, the exigencies of the Arian heresy forced the Church to respond at the Council of Nicaea with the Nicene creed, a standard of orthodox Trinitarianism which has stood both the test of time and the ravaging winds of theological innovation.

With Arius, a creed turned out to be an indispensable tool. Arius was exceptionally crafty. It was extremely difficult to pin him down theologically. He almost always resorted to the actually words used in Scripture when pressed for an explanation of his teaching, but it was always evident that something was still awry. Whenever the members of the Council attempted to pin him down on the question of what he believed to Bible to teach, or, in what sense did he understand the language of Scripture, he was found to equivocate and evade the questions put to him. As long as he was permitted to hide behind a veneer of general profession, his errors were not readily apparent. The solution was to draw up a statement of what the Fathers believed to be the Scripture's teaching on the deity of Christ. When Arius was confronted with this and asked to subscribe to it, he was flushed out as the heretic that he was. The Council was proven correct in their judgment of him, for by his refusal to subscribe to the creed, he showed that he understood the Scriptures in an entirely different sense than the rest of Christendom. This has repeatedly been case throughout history. 

Creeds and Confessions, A Defense, Part 4

4. A further argument in favor of creeds and confessions is that they promote the study of Christian doctrine.

The only way in which those who fundamentally differ from each other concerning the doctrines of Scripture can have any harmony in ecclesiastical fellowship is by becoming indifferent to the truth. If Christians are indifferent to the truth will they not then be apt today neglect the study of truth? And if the study of truth is neglected, will not ignorance eventually prevail? The simple fact is this: when men love the truth of the gospel enough to study it, they soon learn to evaluate it adequately. And only then will they be disposed to contend for it against its enemies.

If a professing believer entertains the notion that creeds and confessions are un-scriptural (and therefore unlawful), he is half a step from concluding that all contending for doctrine is useless and even sinful. It is easy to see from this how small the transition is to abandoning of the study of doctrine. The enemies of creeds and confessions assume a principle, which, if carried to its logical conclusion, would discourage all zeal in maintaining the purity of the doctrines of the Gospel. If the pulpiteers of the average church in Evangelicalism had it as a goal to make their hearers indifferent about understanding and studying the fundamental doctrines of Scripture, they could adopt no better plan than to do as they actually do in their rejection of creeds and confessions by crying, “Matters of opinion are between God and a man's own conscience. No one else should meddle with that.” Isn't this just another way of saying, “Believe whatever you want; it doesn't matter anyway.” This, of course means that serious study of the doctrines of Scripture is both a waste of time and not conducive to so-called “unity.” No self-respecting minister would actually assert this, but who cares if his practice works on the same underlying framework? Either the doctrines of Scripture are important and should be studied, or they are not important and need not be studied. If we would have churches with Biblically-literate members, nothing is more conducive to this than a creed or confession of faith, which lays out in an orderly and systematic way the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith.

Creeds and Confessions, A Defense, Part 3

3. Creeds and confessions of faith are simply the truth and candor that every Christian church owes to the other churches and to the world around her.

Let us imagine a hypothetical believer, a devout and religious man, who wants to form a deep in spiritual bond to a body of believers of like mind. Before he joins any church, he will want to know something of their faith, their government, and their general character. He will also want to know their doctrine. How will he find any of this out? It will certainly not be by going from church to church within a 50 mile radius of his house trying to ascertain from what he hears from the pulpit what that particular church holds for Bible truth. This would require an impossibly long amount of time and effort which no one can afford. And even supposing he had the time to spend in such an endeavor, he would never hear enough of the doctrine of anyone church to be able to decide what the universal and uniform character of that particular church was. He would have no way of knowing whether what he saw and heard on any given Sunday was standard procedure or a mere fluke.

But supposing that this hypothetical inquirer finds that we have a published creed or confession of faith, which declares how we understand the Scriptures, and further details the great truths which we have agreed to unite in maintaining, he can ascertain in a very short time without even leaving his own living room, what we profess to believe, and how far his views accord with our published confession.

Creeds and confessions therefore, rather than alienating and embittering Christians and churches who think merely alike, in fact make them better acquainted with each other while laying the foundation for mutual confidence in harmony as fellow believers and members of the church of God. Whole denominations exist, whose doctrinal standards are virtually identical, yet no one would know how far they are agreed without these standards being published and subscribed to in a public manner.

The aforementioned hypothetical believer merely presents us with one half of the equation. But the same logic applies with regard to our witness to the world around us. Do not churches and denominations owe the world around them an honest and candid presentation of their beliefs? Surely no one would dispute this. This is precisely what creeds and confessions do.

Creeds and Confessions, A Defense, Part 2

2. Another argument for the importance of creeds and confessions appears from considering what the church was established to be, namely a depository, a guardian, and a witness of the truth.

Scripture represents Christians, collectively as well as individually, as witnesses for God. They are exhorted to contend earnestly for the faith and to hold fast to the form of sound words which they have received and to strive together for the faith of the Gospel.

Surely this implies taking effective measures to distinguish between truth and error. Surely this implies the duty of drawing a line between those who profess to believe the Bible, while in reality denying its essential doctrines, and those who humbly receive the truth.

There is only one way that this can be done. The only way a distinction can be made between those who deny the essential doctrines of Scripture and those who embrace them – while both professing to receive and believe the Bible – is by ascertaining and explicitly declaring how the church understands and interpret the Bible. In other words the church must extract articles of faith from the Scriptures and compared those articles with the professed belief of those whom she suspects to be heretics. But what is this if not a creed or Confession of faith? To this point, Samuel Miller writes, “It does really appear to me that those orthodox brethren, who admit that the church is bound to raise her voice against error, and to 'contend earnestly' for the truth; and yet denounce creeds and confessions, are, in the highest degree inconsistent with themselves.” A truer sentence was never written.

Demanding a church members and her ministers uphold a truth, while refusing to give them the tools to do it, beyond a naked “I believe in the Bible,” is like the Egyptian taskmasters sending the Israelites to their brickwork without supplying down the necessary materials to meet their quota. There really is no other alternative. You must either have “a form of sound words” (2 Tim. 1:13), or you can have no security that any two decisions about the faith will be made on the same basis.

Creeds and Confessions, A Defense, Part 1

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 2^nd 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.

"No Creed But The Bible" is a Creed!

A Case For Creeds, Catechisms and Confessions of Faith

Creeds and Confessions of faith used to seem strange to me. I grew up Pentecostal. I heard the old mantra: “No creed but the Bible,” more times than you can shake a stick at.

My study of Church history has led me to see the vital importance of creeds, catechisms and confessions of faith. The most famous creeds and doctrinal statements all came out of times of great theological turmoil. The church was forced to clarify her beliefs in a standardized form that could be used to judge anything taught by anyone.

I anticipate someone saying, “Isn’t the Bible sufficient?” To which I answer, “Of course it is!” A creed, confession or catechism is not an addition to anything the Bible teaches. They are simply tools which cut to the chase and get at what we mean when we say we believe the Bible.

The Roman Catholic Church falsely teaches that regeneration is effected by the sacrament of baptism. She also falsely teaches that salvation is not by justification alone. She professes to believe the Bible. Arminians teach decisional regeneration. They also teach that salvation is maintained by works. They claim to believe the Bible. Reformed theology rightly teaches that salvation is by faith alone, without any reference to works; that indeed, the faith itself is a gift of God.

One purpose of creeds, catechisms and confessions of faith should be obvious. They serve as a basis for Christian unity. So much is made of unity these days, but so little is made of the basis of that unity. N.T. Wright has just proclaimed that schism is never justifiable. I beg to differ. I will not be fellowshipping with anyone who corrupts the Gospel the way that he does. Christian unity is not some amorphous good feeling that we foist upon ourselves. It is attained by agreement over doctrine. I can’t stand the tired old refrain: “doctrine divides.” My cheap and obvious answer to that is: Duh! It’s supposed to divide! How else to we at least take a stab at maintaining some modicum of doctrinal purity?

The greatest use and service creeds, catechisms and confessions of faith provide is in the instruction of the Church. They are a tool for training new converts and children in the faith. They protect the purity of the church’s teaching by saying in effect, “This is what we believe the Bible teaches.” As long as everyone adheres, there is perfect unity.

Getting back to the old “No creed but the Bible” line. People who advocate this overlook two important facts.

1. That itself is a creed! Where in Scripture is the line, “No creed but the Bible.” That statement is a man-made statement which exists outside of Scripture and is professed and believed.

2. It is unspeakably arrogant. The holder to the “No creed but the Bible” creed is saying. “I am perfectly happy ignoring the collective wisdom of God’s people and substituting my own unassisted wisdom in its place.” If you won’t listen to the collective wisdom of the Heidelberg Catechism or the Westminster Confession of Faith, why should I trust you?

The simple fact is the choice is not between the Bible and a creed, as creed repudiators often assert. The choice is between the tried and proven wisdom of God’s people as formulated in times of great trial and upheaval and the creed hater’s own private judgment and unguided wisdom.

Furthermore, what tool does the creed and confession hater use for training new believers? How does he train his children? Without a standard and structured formula that has the unified consent of God’s people as a thoroughly biblical representation of what they believe, he is left to his own whims. There just is no good reason for not using the great instructional tools our forefathers fought to give us.