Mine would be the New Hampshire Confession of 1833.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Confessions of Faith
- Thread starter Rebel1
- Start date
Of newer ones, our church's Statement of Faith.
Of older ones, the First London Confession.
In between, the New Hampshire Confession.
I would question whether there are "definitive differences" between creeds and confessions. (Catechisms are another animal entirely, being pedagogic, not declarative.)
Both creeds and confessions set out beliefs. Technically, creed is often used to describe the so-called ecumenical confessions (Apostles, Nicene or Nicene-Constantinopolitan, and Athanasian) that outline essential orthodoxy and confession usually refers to a statement of faith of a movement or denomination.
Nonetheless, confessions are creedal, that is, they represent beliefs that those who subscribe to them consider essential; normative if not regulative. If they weren't, a substantial number of Southern Baptist churches wouldn't continue to insist on using the Baptist Faith and Message of 1963 rather than the 2000 version.
This is just my opinion – how I view “creeds” as used historically verses confessions.
When I think of a confession I think of Peter’s confession of a truth – Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. This confession becomes a creed when it is appealed to apart from Scripture (if one were to say they subscribe to Peter’s confession of faith rather than appealing to Scripture itself). I believe, therefore, that most documents we consider confessions are in fact creeds.
The BF&M is a good example. I am a member of a SBC church. The current version of the BF&M is an expression of beliefs my church shares with other churches in the Convention. We cannot subscribe to a past BF&M because having been superseded it is nothing more than a historical doctrine. If we were to subscribe to the BF&M (past or present) then it becomes a creed (it becomes prescriptive of our belief).
Calvin is another example as he uses creedal statements to defend the doctrine that Christ descended into Hell. While acknowledging early writings are absent this doctrine, he fortifies the teaching of Christ’s descent into Hell by stating that such expressions of the Church demonstrate a belief already present even if not articulated in the form of written doctrine (Calvin, Institutes, Book 2 Ch. 16). Such a use is precarious as it can justify both truth and error (e.g., for centuries Origen’s Ransom Theory was accepted, although it is not seriously entertained today).
Many creeds and confessions are adequate in expressing my belief because they look to Scripture. But I will not appeal to creeds or confessions because they are diluted Scripture, expressing not only God’s Word but also a groups interpretation or application of His Word. They may be used to teach, but a principle, interpretation, or moral once taught needs to be adopted based on the principle, interpretation, or moral itself and not the teacher or mode of instruction. The appeal should be to Scripture.
Individually, the 1689 Baptist Confession.
My church adheres to the Basis of Faith and associated documents of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches.
Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches
My church adheres to the Basis of Faith and associated documents of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches.
Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches
Calvin would have been thinking of later versions of the so-called Apostles' Creed. You can find out about its history here: https://blog.faithlife.com/blog/2015/04/the-apostles-creed-its-history-and-origins/
Calvin's view comes IMO from a faulty understanding of Ephesians 4:9 & 1 Peter 3:18.
Calvin held to, yet finagled, the "descended into Hell" part of the Apostles Creed.
Sproul explains how Calvin reinterpreted the Hell part as happening on the cross:
The Apostles Creed - A Teaching Series by Dr. R.C. Sproul
So while reciting the the stated order with others:
1. suffered under Pontius Pilate
2. was crucified
3. died
4. was buried
5. descended into Hell
6. rose again the third day
Calvin would be thinking this shuffled order in his mind:
1. suffered under Pontius Pilate
2. was crucified
5. descended into Hell
3. died
4. was buried
6. rose again the third day
Nifty, huh? But don't you try pulling something like that with a Confession!
Sproul explains how Calvin reinterpreted the Hell part as happening on the cross:
The Apostles Creed - A Teaching Series by Dr. R.C. Sproul
So while reciting the the stated order with others:
1. suffered under Pontius Pilate
2. was crucified
3. died
4. was buried
5. descended into Hell
6. rose again the third day
Calvin would be thinking this shuffled order in his mind:
1. suffered under Pontius Pilate
2. was crucified
5. descended into Hell
3. died
4. was buried
6. rose again the third day
Nifty, huh? But don't you try pulling something like that with a Confession!
Last edited:
I am not into confessions of faith unless I have to work through an issue with someone who is challenging a specific issue such as the birth, death and resurrection, sin, natural human condition, ...
Rather, to me it is important that folks have Scriptural based principles to live by in which they engage to discern both truth and light for their walk.
It is one thing to be able to quote some statement of faith or creed, and a whole other matter to actually have rock solid life principles based upon the handling of the Scriptures and the experienced walk of a Holy Spirit lead life.
To me it is a whole lot different to say, "I believe in God, the Father..." and The Father would be pleased with me doing....
Rather, to me it is important that folks have Scriptural based principles to live by in which they engage to discern both truth and light for their walk.
It is one thing to be able to quote some statement of faith or creed, and a whole other matter to actually have rock solid life principles based upon the handling of the Scriptures and the experienced walk of a Holy Spirit lead life.
To me it is a whole lot different to say, "I believe in God, the Father..." and The Father would be pleased with me doing....
That's exactly what creeds and confessions are.
He will from reformed Baptists like myself, and mine is the 1689 Baptist Confession!
Sounds like that would be the correct way.
Perhaps,
But in many places the reciting of a confession and rehearsal of a creed never travels from the intellectual to the practice.
Rather in the establishment of principles that the believer utilizes daily in their living, there is a experiential aspect that is promoted.
Does not a confession and a creed carry the aspect of and level relating to that of conviction. That which one would sacrifice their life rather then deny?
Yet, living by principles taught in Scriptures allows one to select from many and varied aspects in which tolerance, level of inclusion, and standards of exclusion.
Rather then a wooden recitation, the person becomes a living testimony.
Both confession and creed are important, as well as assembly statement of faith and constitutions. Such establish the parameters of what that assembly have doctrinally and as a corporate agreed. It is that which regulates the membership, the doctrinal views, the politics, the maintenance ...
Yet, that which conforms the individual to living as Christlike are the principles of the Scriptures lighting their life as those Scriptures are lived.
Would it be that everyone is so doctrinally sound and biblically literate that they have no need for written confessions, commentaries, or Creed's. The reason you refer to them is the reason they exist. The 1689 LBC has been a useful tool for me. It helps me when I need clarity on important doctrinal issues. Old dead white men still have value.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
Certainly, such have their place and are useful. There is no doubt that one should refer to them especially as a resource for important doctrinal issues that they are considering.
However, as I stated above, the creeds and confessions (especially that which are recited in some worship services on a regular basis) become wooden and (imo) not integrated into the actual living as a Scripture principle might.
Again, it is the usefulness.
One living by principle has the tool to match situations, temptations, and other events and thoughts with Scriptures such as found in Proverbs, or examples from the NT.
Where a creed will present a statement of fact, or that which one may die for (a confession of conviction) the principle established in a life will carry that person with head held high to the death.
For example, Luther stood upon the Scripture principle(s) unwilling to recant what he had written (convictions).
Remember Paul's use of armor and the believer?
In what apparel was that believer to stand? (confession/conviction)
What was the believer to hold out as the tool in the struggle? (principles of Scriptures).
"I will hide your word in my heart, that I not sin against you."
There will always be a need to systematically write down the statements of faith, the creeds, the confessions, that which one can display as the core essentials of faith and practice.
And, there is this aspect of practical living not just from the core essentials but including all the principles of Scriptures.
I like it also!
There can be 2 extremes to avoid in this area of the Confessions/Creeds. One would be to claim that we Baptists are bible only, and so would look with suspicion of any/all of them, while the other danger is to only have our theology based upon them and not the scriptures, for if there is any times what we see the bible teaching and what they are affirming to disagree, the scriptures are the ones to heed and obey!
Such is the risk of hearing scripture read or attending weekly worship services; both run the risk of becoming rote to an individual. In my former church, we did not read the confession during the worship service. I am not a fan of that practice*.
P.S. To clarify, I am not a fan of the confession being read in worship.
Last edited:
God only blesses the reading and hearing of the scriptures.
With respect, that's not the object of a Confession of faith. Its purpose is to keep a church on the right lines doctrinally and to prevent those who 'creep in unnoticed' (Jude 4) to the churches and seek to change the doctrine. It is one thing to agree that everyone follows the Bible, but another to agree on what the Bible actually teaches.
One drawback to the historic confessions is that they do not consider some of the issues that face our churches today-- women ministers and same-sex marriage, for instance. It is necessary to put an extra article into one's church's constitution to make sure that no one who agrees with such things can come into membership.
I thought I made that distinction very clear.
The statements of faith, the creeds, the constitutions, the by-laws... all serve as the point at which the assembly is unified and does business.
Those things are vital to the assembly, and should on a regular basis be reviewed by all members to verify there is unity or a need for revision.
However, there is also (as I attempted to show) that practical living of the believers is served by learning the principles of the Scriptures, the Scriptures in which they will use to discern, to combat, to teach others ...