Featured How "No Creed but the Bible" Subverts the Bible

Seems to miss the main point of distinction that Baptists historically have made between a "creed" (which tends to supersede the Bible) and a "confession" (which seeks to explain a faith-based interpretative stance by means of a general guideline for those affirming such).

I worry more about an SBC seminary professor suggesting we should move more into heavy-handed creedalism than simply remaining united in our historically based confessional stance.

 

Timothy George of Founders Ministries:

Baptist Press • Dockery, George call for renewed study of Baptist history

"George raised the question of whether Baptists are creedal people. He said Baptists have never advocated creedalism, in that they have always been ardent supporters of religious liberty and have never elevated any human-created statement above Scripture."

"'Baptists have never canonized any of their confessions, but rather have held them all to be revisable in the light of the Bible, God’s infallible, unchanging revelation,' George said."

"But a minority of Baptists has historically believed that creeds and confessions are useful statements of faith. 'Still, for all their value, confessions must be used with great wisdom and care,' George said. 'Confessionalism -- like creedalism and traditionalism -- can stultify and choke, as well as undergird and defend.'

 

Subjectively speaking, the two can be synonymous. Functionally, confessions such as the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, Westminster Confession of Faith, ad the Belgic Confession are more systematic in addressing specific points of doctrine. Creeds tend to be more narrow in scope. Then again, one person's creed is another person's confession and vice versa.

 

Martin Marprelate, I see your pet obsession the Salters' Hall Synod is the focus of an entire conference at Oxford University next month:

Centre for Baptist History & Heritage/Baptist Historical Society Conference on the Salters’ Hall Debates of 1719

How exciting. Sounds like it's right up your alley. Will you be attending?

 

I think the main issue here is that we still have agreement that only the scriptures are inspired and infallible to us for all doctrines and theology, but that the Confessions would be really good summary statements of what the scriptures hold with as being true.

 

I think the issue is regarding if Confessions of faith such as 1689 one means denying sola scriptura, and your articles point and mine would be that they do not!

 

So you believe Jesus "descended into Hell"?

 

I read it and was not impressed. No creeds does not subvert the Bible. People with creeds and without creeds subvert the Bible.

How ironic that 2 Tim. 3:16 is referred to in an article on creeds. The Bible does not encourage creeds. In fact Jesus spoke against the accretion of misguided tradition when He said "You have heard that it was said ... but I say unto you". And also He spoke of the "traditions of men that make the Word of God no effect". No, they were not called creeds, but they were quite similar.

The creeds and the Church Fathers are what the Roman Catholic authorities flung in Luther's face when he had the novel, heretical (to them) schismatic teaching of justification by faith.

No, we have the Word of God to guide us. If we leave that we quickly come on to shaky ground. Creeds and Confessions are mostly correct and they do have value for studying. But the Bible is totally correct. If we misapply it it is our fault.

The creeds are mostly correct but in a few areas, like eschatology - or assumed eschatology - they are wide of the mark. Also their description of the nature of Christ and His kingdom.

 

Campbell would be part of that no creed movement. People following him did not know what they believed or why they believed it. The teaching of doctrine, the defense of the faith and giving everyman an answer, fell into decline in the nineteenth century "to avoid division", commensurate with the rise of the cults. The SBC has the Faith and Message to meet that need. They wisely finesse a strict eschatology and the rape and incest questions of abortion. Now if they can just stand against the heresy that homosexuality is natural as well as the heresy that Islam is something other than demonic.

 

Informative as always, Martin. I've been reading a bit lately on the creep of Unitarianism.

 

He has a number of problems. First, he lists only "particular" creeds which shows his slant on things. The author is trying to push Calvanism and eject any belief that runs counter to that. He is unable to do that with the Bible, so he is using a creed to try to do it.

Second, there is a reason why many avoid creeds.

First, words get redefined, created, or simply divorced from their original meaning. Regenerate does not carry the same meaning to me and born-again or obtaining a new heart. My definition of grace doesn't agree with that of the New Hampshire or London confessions. I believe in predestination too, but my definition for the word is completely different. With the bible, I can see a clear context to the meaning of the words. With a creed, I have no context. The creed is basically meaningless. This is why many say we may use the same words, but we use different dictionaries.

Second, once you announce your creed, it is very hard to go back on that creed. The creed literally becomes an addendum of the Bible people will fight to defend fiercely for. One local church has the Rapture in the creed. (Another word not in the Bible.) Now they will as fiercely defend their belief in the Rapture as the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Third, formal statements of religious beliefs have denounced believer's baptism for a millennium. Should there be any other reason why Baptists should avoid creeds? These statements of religious belief have fought against and still fight against one of the cornerstones of what it means to be Baptist - believer's baptism. Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox, etc. all support infant as oppose to believer's baptism. All of the founders of Baptist churches rejected the creeds of the churches of which they were originally members.

Only scripture was also the battle-cry of the founding Baptists. It's how Baptists got started.

 

That verse is not referring to anything outside of God's Word. The context shows that the ancient paths are God's Word. See vss. 10 and 19.

I see what you did. You describe your creed as 'ancient'. Then you quote this verse as it has anything to do with my aversion to creeds.

This is what creedalists do. 1. They promote creeds and confessions to the point where they crowd out Scripture - if not surpass It altogether.

2. They eisegete passages in order to justify their inordinate respect for what is basically the traditions of men