Should Baptists use Confessions and Creeds?

[Marooncat79]

No, they have not. Asserting is not proving.

Yes they have. I included an article in the thread. Also, as stated, there some in the NT, these were used ny Xians before the canon was codified. Many churches may have only had 2-3 copies of NT texts so it was also a learning mechanism to teach theological truth

The Didache, and Eusebius (et al) testify to this fact and they are non-christians.

If you believe me to be wrong then counter with correct info, so that I might be corrected

 

[Marooncat79]

4.3 Creeds in the New Testament - Evidences for Christianity

 

[Reformed1689]

or dies that violate scriptures only?

Don't you believe Scripture is sufficient.? All I need is in Christ and scripture. Only men corrupt perfection.
MB

Yes, creeds and confessions are necessary. Not because the Bible is insufficient but because saying "I believe the Bible" tells me nothing. WHAT do you believe about the Bible? That's the purpose of a creed and confession.

 

[asterisktom]

Then why preach a sermon? Again, a confession is nothing more than a concise way of organizing a theological concept into a simpler understanding.

Scripture is used to form a confession. It is the very backbone. A good confession uses nothing but scripture. Thats why there are Bible references at the end of them

Question: What is the Koine Greek word for "creed"? There isn't one. The closest is θρησκεία which is "religion". It occurs 4 times in the NT, never once for creed. Or "confession"? The word - as used in Reformed circles is not in Scripture.

How are you so sure that those passages your article referenced are creeds? I do agree that there are summations of the faith. They are convenient inspired bullet points, if I may use that term,

But, just for the sake of argument, maybe they are creeds or confessions. If so they are inspired creeds. They do not have "Bible references at the end of them" They are Bible references.

Now the question is if these "creeds" in the Bible - along with the rest of the Bible - are, in the words of Paul

"inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

why do we need any more creeds or confessions?

Would they be inspired? No.
Are they without error or differences among each other? No.
Is there an inspired admonition not to add to Scripture? Yes.

And this is what many creedalist do. They elevate creeds to such an extent that it becomes the traditional grid from which they see - and communicate - their faith. To communicate and excommunicate. And I am speaking from personal painful experience.

I personally believe that the Bible gives us all the information we need so that we can be equipped for every good work.

I can see why some creedalists want to see creeds in the Bible. It implies that post-inspiration creeds and confessions are still from the same cloth. That there is a divine precedence. Even the Puritan John Owen saw through the dangers of this thinking.

Creeds are not ad fontes. They are ad hoc."created or done for a particular purpose as necessary".

They are often created to combat a certain heresy or perceived heresy in Christianity. In order to counter Heresy Z they formulate anti-Z tenets. But in their zeal counter Heresy Z they rigidly state the opposite side - as if there were only two choices, Z or not Z.

Most of the creeds and confessions are full of beautiful summations of Biblical truth. But also they have a lot of baggage as well. I would gladly get into this further but this post is already too long.

 

[Marooncat79]

Respectfully, who are you to determine that a thread here is too long?

I still say the easiest and best way to transmit theological knowledge to the unlearned is through Catechism and Creeds

No they are not inspired

Neither are sermons inspired w/o error. Examples: Copeland, Hinn, Meyer. If more people were catechised, there would be less heresy on TV. - JMO

 

[MB]

Respectfully, who are you to determine that a thread here is too long?

I still say the easiest and best way to transmit theological knowledge to the unlearned is through Catechism and Creeds

No they are not inspired

Neither are sermons inspired w/o error. Examples: Copeland, Hinn, Meyer. If more people were catechised, there would be less heresy on TV. - JMO

This is proof that Calvinism and Catholicism are linked together in your theology.
MB

 

[Marooncat79]

Not at all. Other than both typically use them.

 

[JonC]

or dies that violate scriptures only?

If they help, sure. They can be useful aides in teaching and defining one's belief. Sooner or later, though, I would hope the Baptists could move directly to Scripture without such crutches. I think of it like our children's bible lessons. They contain truths and help to see truths, but are not exactly the Word. As Christians move towards maturity I think that they move form these tools as defining doctrine for themselves. But perhaps they remain useful in defining to others where the church or churches stand (a common ground of belief).

 

[asterisktom]

Respectfully, who are you to determine that a thread here is too long?

I said my post, not thread.

Now its bedtime here. I will get back to this later.

Take care

 

[MB]

Not at all. Other than both typically use them.

This is because they came from the same place.
MB

 

[Yeshua1]

The problem with creeds, confessions or other summaries of biblical doctrine, is they contain questionable assertions. The body of Christ does not agree on exactly what the bible teaches. How many "statements of faith" have we read where the "hot button" issues are addressed with ambiguity or not at all. I think every local baptist assembly should publicly display their "what we believe" statement, to allow for unity as believers choose to join the fellowship.

This is why Baptist churches are good, as most of them have a wide range of acceptable doctrimes and theology among members!

 

[Yeshua1]

No, they have not. Asserting is not proving.

Paul quoted one such belief in Philippians concerning Christ!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, it violates Scripture. If violates is too strong it at least crowds it out.

It is ironic that many Reformed who profess so strongly Sola Scriptura also insist on creeds. They actually believe Scriptura cum Commento

Not insist, but Confessions useful way to clarify scriptures doctrines in a summary form!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, creeds and confessions are necessary. Not because the Bible is insufficient but because saying "I believe the Bible" tells me nothing. WHAT do you believe about the Bible? That's the purpose of a creed and confession.

It aids one to understand and to clarry what our beliefs regarding doctrines of scriptures are, as its really same principle as say one using the Thompson Chain Bible!

 

[MB]

Not insist, but Confessions useful way to clarify scriptures doctrines in a summary form!

How can this be when they are not inspired of GOD?
MB

 

[Yeshua1]

If they help, sure. They can be useful aides in teaching and defining one's belief. Sooner or later, though, I would hope the Baptists could move directly to Scripture without such crutches. I think of it like our children's bible lessons. They contain truths and help to see truths, but are not exactly the Word. As Christians move towards maturity I think that they move form these tools as defining doctrine for themselves. But perhaps they remain useful in defining to others where the church or churches stand (a common ground of belief).

Churches that use them seem to be able to stand better on the theology of the scriptures then those that do not use any though!

 

[Yeshua1]

How can this be when they are not inspired of GOD?
MB

same way Thompson chain bible unites scriptures together in an organized form!

 

[JonC]

Churches that use them seem to be able to stand better on the theology of the scriptures then those that do not use any though!

I don't know that thus is true. My last church had a strong church Covenant that addressed what would be in a creed or Confession plus. There was no issue with doctrine slipping or even church discipline.

But these things do need to be defined, I agree with you there.

 

[Van]

This is why Baptist churches are good, as most of them have a wide range of acceptable doctrimes and theology among members!

Gee, I thought it was because they were devoted to Christ, my bad.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't know that thus is true. My last church had a strong church Covenant that addressed what would be in a creed or Confession plus. There was no issue with doctrine slipping or even church discipline.

But these things do need to be defined, I agree with you there.

Does not need to be a formal Confession of faith, but how many members even know if their church has a statement of beliefs and what is in it?