Featured Confessionalism and the Salters' Hall Synod

Almost exactly 300 years ago there was a remarkable event in English Free Church history, which precipitated the collapse of Presbyterianism and the General Baptists in England, and came close, humanly speaking, to destroying Trinitarianism.

I believe that this event has important implications for the Church today and highlights the vital importance of Biblical confessions.

http://marprelate.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/learning-the-lessons-of-history-1/

http://marprelate.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/learning-the-lessons-of-history-2/

I posted this on the History forum about seven years ago, but in the light of recent discussions, I think it may be worth looking at again. Please read it.

 

Thanks to the six or seven people who read my article.

For those who have not done so, the gist of it is that Unitarianism gained a foothold in England in the early 18th Century because of the reluctance to uphold the Westminster and 1689 Confessions. Those who were introducing heresy, refused to accept any creedal definition of the Trinity or Deity of Christ, but appealed to the Bible upon which they placed their own interpretation.

This should surprise no one. The phrase 'No creed but the Bible' has been the cry of heretics from the earliest times. Here is an account of Arius' conduct at the Council of Nicaea:

When the Council entered on the examination of the subject [of Arius' view of the divinity of Christ], it was found extremely difficult to obtain from Arius and satisfactory explanation of his views. He was not only as ready as the most orthodox divine present to profess that he believed the Bible; but he also declared himself willing to adopt as his own, all the language of the Scriptures, in detail, concerning the Person and character of the blessed Redeemer. But when the members of the Council wished to ascertain in what sense he understood this language, he discovered a disposition to evade and equivocate, and actually, for a considerable time, baffled the attempts of the most ingenious of the orthodox to specify his errors, and to bring them to light. He declared that he was perfectly willing to employ the popular language on the subject; and wished to have it believed that he differed very little from the body of the Church.
Accordingly, the orthodox went over the various titles of Christ plainly expressive of divinity, such as "God"-- "the true God," the "express image of God," etc.-- to everyone of which Arius and his followers most readily subscribed-- claiming a right, however, to put their own construction on the scriptural titles in question. After employing much time and ingenuity in vain, in endeavouring to drag this artful thief from his lurking places, and to obtain from him an explanation of his views, the Council found it would be impossible to accomplish their object as long as they permitted him to entrench himself behind a mere general profession of belief in the Bible. They therefore......expressed, in their own language, what they supposed to be the doctrine of Scripture concerning the divinity of the Saviour; in other words, they drew up a Confession of faith on this subject, which they called Arius and his followers to subscribe. This the heretics refused: and wre thus virtually brought to the acknowledgement that they did not understand the Scriptures as the rest of the Council understood them, and of course, that the charge against them was correct. [Samuel Miller, The Utility and Importance of Creeds and Confessions ]

To object to confessions and creeds is not, as @JonC seems to suggest, a mark of Biblicism, but a mark either of pride or naivety. The church in which I was saved was a Brethren congregation and its creed was 'the Bible.' Because the church was successful, we had people coming in from different denominations: Methodists, Pentecostals and allsorts. People started pushing for this or that distinctive and because there was no confession and the constitution stated only that we followed the Bible, there was nothing to regulate things except the elders. Then one of those espoused Pentecostalism and the church split down the middle. One elder left; another had a nervous breakdown. It still exists today, but the Gospel is no longer preached there.

Here are two comments by Baptists on creeds: one English, the other American:

'There is a great diversity of sentiment in the world concerning morality, as well as doctrine: and if it be an unscriptural imposition to agree any articles whatsoever, it must also be to exclude anyone for immorality, or even to admonish him on that account; for it might be alleged that he only thinks for himself, and acts accordingly. Nor would it stop here: almost every species of immorality has been defended and may be disguised, and thus, under the pretence of a right of private judgement, the Church would become like the mother of harlots-- 2The habitation of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.' [Andrew Fuller]

Is this not what we see increasingly in many churches today that do not have a firm written foundation of faith and conduct? It certainly is in many Baptist Union churches in Britain.

'A church with a little creed is a church with a little life. the more divine doctrines a church can agree on, the greater its power, and the wider its usefulness. The fewer its articles of faith, the fewer its bonds of union and compactness. The moder cry, "Less creed and more liberty," is a degeneration from the vertebrate to the jellyfish, and means less unity and less morality, and it means more heresy. Definitive truth does not create heresy-- it only exposes and corrects. Shut off the creed and the Christian world would fill up with heresy unsuspected and uncorrected, but none the less deadly.' [B.H. Carroll]

Nor does the lack of confessions mean a church that is less legalistic. The Brethren movement was founded to be a loose association of assemblies following nothing but the Bible and meting around the Lord's table. But very soon after its inception, J.N. Darby took exception to something written by another leader, Benjamin Newton, and Darby refused to associate with any assembly that did not separate from Newton's church. Brethrenism divided into Open Brethren and Exclusive Brethren. The latter body became the most legalistic group imaginable and its members more reclusive and severe than the J.W.s.

Thomas and Alexander Campbell thought they could remove the evils of what they called 'sectarianism' by gathering a Christian community without any human creed, with no bond of faith save in Jesus as Saviour and a professed determination to obey His word. Today, I understand, the so-called 'Churches of Christ' are among the most sectarian to be found anywhere.

N.B. Quotations lifted from A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith by Samuel Waldron

 

Amen! We all believe in sola Scriptura. 'The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience' (1689 Confession 1:1). But it is one thing for a man to come to my church and say he believes the Bible. I want to know what he believes the Bible to teach. Notice that word 'sufficient.' It serves to keep the charismatics out.

 

Read the post, especially concerning Arius at the Council of Nicaea.

 

You will perhaps agree with the following statement then:

'To arrive at the truth we must dismiss religious prejudices.......We must let God speak for Himself.......Our appeal is to the Bible for truth.'

The only trouble is that the statement comes from the Watchtower organization in their publication, 'Let God be True.'

 

Thank you for proving my point.
It will not be enough for me to say that God is holy in order to differentiate myself from Mormonism. It is not enough for you to quote 2 Tim. 3:16 to separate yourself from the Watchtower. We need to lay down the whole of our faith in writing and then the differences will be apparent.

 

You really, really, really don't get it, do you?
I support confessions and would not consider joining a church that did not have one precisely because I ACCEPT Sola Scriptura. Just read the first paragraph of the first article of the 1689 Confession.

You have said several times that you agree with Penal Substitution, but you don't in any sense that I understand. It's only when we come to definitions that the differences come out.

 

I have said that the Scripture alone is always totally sufficient for truth. Do not put words in my mouth, please. That is why I am confessional. What I have said is that confessing Sola Scripture has been the device of sundry heretics down the ages as I have repeatedly shown on this thread.

You are a piece of work! I did indeed show how 1 John 2:2 properly understood requires Penal Substitution. It's here
Is the Penal Substitution Theory the most common theory throughout history?
But, of course, you never engaged with it, as is your practice whenever confronted with Scripture, as I have discovered several times. You are entitled to tell me I'm wrong, but you are not entitled to tell me that I don't use the Scripture in my posts because that would be a lie.

That's fine. You should take note of it. But the point of the thread and the O.P. is that it was the heretic who hid behind Sola Scriptura and had to be rooted out by being required to agree to the definition of the Trinity found in a confession.