Creeds and Confessions

[Reformed]

In his 2023 book "The Preeminent Christ", Paul Washer writes:

Throughout church history, sincere Christians, preachers, and scholars have sought to identify and summarize the essentials of the Christian faith in concise and intelligible statements. In many of these creeds and confessions, the gospel is presented with amazing clarity, giving us something of a standard for historical Christian interpretation. These creeds and confessions are not inspired, inerrant, or infallible; they must not be set above or equal to the Scriptures in authority. Nevertheless, they were written for the purpose of instruction and to protect the church from heresy. Therefore, they are useful for every generation of Christians because they are a record of what orthodox believers have affirmed throughout the centuries. The purpose for citing the following creeds and confessions is not to endorse those who wrote them or to affirm every detail of their content. It is simply to demonstrate two important realities: first, that the gospel holds the central place in the doctrines of historical Christianity, and second, that the essential tenets of the gospel have been affirmed by genuine believers throughout the long history of the church.

Paul Washer, The Preeminent Christ (Reformed Heritage Books, 2023)

I have often read attacks on creeds and confessions claiming that their subscribers elevate them to be equal or superior to scripture or that they were the words of fallible men. Certainly anyone can take a document and distort its importance or meaning. But if used for its intended purpose a creed or confession can, as Paul Washer writes, "identify and summarize the essentials of the Christian faith". Isn't this what the preacher does from the pulpit during worship? He proclaims the Word of God through his fallible human mouth. Few Christians would accuse a faithful preacher of trying to elevate his words to be equal or superior to scripture. We would weigh his words against the very scripture he is proclaiming, and then determine whether they accurately represent the Word of God.

 

[Zaatar71]

In his 2023 book "The Preeminent Christ", Paul Washer writes:

Throughout church history, sincere Christians, preachers, and scholars have sought to identify and summarize the essentials of the Christian faith in concise and intelligible statements. In many of these creeds and confessions, the gospel is presented with amazing clarity, giving us something of a standard for historical Christian interpretation. These creeds and confessions are not inspired, inerrant, or infallible; they must not be set above or equal to the Scriptures in authority. Nevertheless, they were written for the purpose of instruction and to protect the church from heresy. Therefore, they are useful for every generation of Christians because they are a record of what orthodox believers have affirmed throughout the centuries. The purpose for citing the following creeds and confessions is not to endorse those who wrote them or to affirm every detail of their content. It is simply to demonstrate two important realities: first, that the gospel holds the central place in the doctrines of historical Christianity, and second, that the essential tenets of the gospel have been affirmed by genuine believers throughout the long history of the church.

Paul Washer, The Preeminent Christ (Reformed Heritage Books, 2023)
Many who have not seen how a Confession of faith can be helpful in several ways. Some do speak against them, but mostly they do not understand the substance presented in them, the verses offered.
I have often read attacks on creeds and confessions claiming that their subscribers elevate them to be equal or superior to scripture or that they were the words of fallible men. Certainly anyone can take a document and distort its importance or meaning. But if used for its intended purpose a creed or confession can, as Paul Washer writes, "identify and summarize the essentials of the Christian faith". Isn't this what the preacher does from the pulpit during worship? He proclaims the Word of God through his fallible human mouth. Few Christians would accuse a faithful preacher of trying to elevate his words to be equal or superior to scripture. We would weigh his words against the very scripture he is proclaiming, and then determine whether they accurately represent the Word of God.

Many who are critics have never really used then correctly to see the benefit and protection against false teaching.

 

[Ascetic X]

Reformed said: “Few Christians would accuse a faithful preacher of trying to elevate his words to be equal or superior to scripture. We would weigh his words against the very scripture he is proclaiming, and then determine whether they accurately represent the Word of God.”

But unfaithful preachers do seem to elevate their words as superior to scripture, when they avoid the gospel message, and replace it with sports analogies, personal anecdotes, jokes, and mind science / positive thinking lectures.

Creeds are nice summaries of the basic essence of Christian faith and are valuable as such, like an evangelism tract, a devout book, a commentary, the Philokalia collection of desert monk teachings, a daily devotional, a prayer compendium, or a Dave Christiano film. We are blessed to have these tools of holy assistance.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I was saved at a chuch that 'just believed the Bible.' It seemed to me as a brand-new Christian to be a splendid thing, but the problem that soon came to the fore is that there is no agreement on what the Bible actually teaches. The result was an influx of people with a whole smorgasbord of theological views, and even the leadership of the church was not united over fairly fundamental doctrines.
Although I owe it a debt I can never repay, and I remain on excellent terms with many who remain there, eventually I left the church and joined another with a clear statement of faith. I do not say that every church should have a massive 17th Century confession, though I would have no objection to that, but there needs to be a statement of faith that lays out at the very least, the basics.
Here is a link to the 'doctrinal basis' of the fellowship of churches to which my church is affiliated. Beliefs - FIEC I draw attention to Item 3, which has been recently updated to deal with Same-sex 'marriage' and gender issues, and also to the three 'Ethos Statements' on women in ministry, Gospel unity and (in more detail) same-sex marriage. These are all issues that would never have entered the thoughts of the compilers of the early confessions. Therefore, such confessions cannot be treated as utterly unchangeable, but need to be added to as circumstances arise.

 

[JesusFan]

Many who are critics have never really used then correctly to see the benefit and protection against false teaching.

Irony is the Baptists who would rail against using any Confession or Creed still follow their own church statement of beliefs, which is basically same thing

 

[JesusFan]

I was saved at a chuch that 'just believed the Bible.' It seemed to me as a brand-new Christian to be a splendid thing, but the problem that soon came to the fore is that there is no agreement on what the Bible actually teaches. The result was an influx of people with a whole smorgasbord of theological views, and even the leadership of the church was not united over fairly fundamental doctrines.
Although I owe it a debt I can never repay, and I remain on excellent terms with many who remain there, eventually I left the church and joined another with a clear statement of faith. I do not say that every church should have a massive 17th Century confession, though I would have no objection to that, but there needs to be a statement of faith that lays out at the very least, the basics.
Here is a link to the 'doctrinal basis' of the fellowship of churches to which my church is affiliated. Beliefs - FIEC I draw attention to Item 3, which has been recently updated to deal with Same-sex 'marriage' and gender issues, and also to the three 'Ethos Statements' on women in ministry, Gospel unity and (in more detail) same-sex marriage. These are all issues that would never have entered the thoughts of the compilers of the early confessions. Therefore, such confessions cannot be treated as utterly unchangeable, but need to be added to as circumstances arise.

Isn't the big issue with trying to get Confessions updated is how they were originally created, not able to us that same method now?

 

[JonC]

In his 2023 book "The Preeminent Christ", Paul Washer writes:

Throughout church history, sincere Christians, preachers, and scholars have sought to identify and summarize the essentials of the Christian faith in concise and intelligible statements. In many of these creeds and confessions, the gospel is presented with amazing clarity, giving us something of a standard for historical Christian interpretation. These creeds and confessions are not inspired, inerrant, or infallible; they must not be set above or equal to the Scriptures in authority. Nevertheless, they were written for the purpose of instruction and to protect the church from heresy. Therefore, they are useful for every generation of Christians because they are a record of what orthodox believers have affirmed throughout the centuries. The purpose for citing the following creeds and confessions is not to endorse those who wrote them or to affirm every detail of their content. It is simply to demonstrate two important realities: first, that the gospel holds the central place in the doctrines of historical Christianity, and second, that the essential tenets of the gospel have been affirmed by genuine believers throughout the long history of the church.

Paul Washer, The Preeminent Christ (Reformed Heritage Books, 2023)

I have often read attacks on creeds and confessions claiming that their subscribers elevate them to be equal or superior to scripture or that they were the words of fallible men. Certainly anyone can take a document and distort its importance or meaning. But if used for its intended purpose a creed or confession can, as Paul Washer writes, "identify and summarize the essentials of the Christian faith". Isn't this what the preacher does from the pulpit during worship? He proclaims the Word of God through his fallible human mouth. Few Christians would accuse a faithful preacher of trying to elevate his words to be equal or superior to scripture. We would weigh his words against the very scripture he is proclaiming, and then determine whether they accurately represent the Word of God.

Creeds and Confessions are great to see what any particular sect believes.

But the problem with the last paragraph should be obvious. People who hold creeds as truth rather than a statement of one sect's belief do elevate them to the level of Scripture even if unaware. Recently @Zaatar71 mentioned that he tests doctrine against creeds, for example.

Does a Calvinist turn to a Pentecostal Confession?
Does an Arminian turn to a Calvinist Confession?
Does a Calvinist turn to a SDA confession of faith?

No, of course not.

People turn to confessions that express what their sect believes.

So as a statement of belief confessions are great. But too often this is not how they are used.

 

[Ascetic X]

Creeds and Confessions are great to see what any particular sect believes.

But the problem with the last paragraph should be obvious. People who hold creeds as truth rather than a statement of one sect's belief do elevate them to the level of Scripture even if unaware.

People turn to confessions that express what their sect believes.

So as a statement of belief confessions are great. But too often this is not how they are used.

I view creeds as “elevator speeches” (named for the brief duration of an elevator ride, its purpose is to quickly capture someone's interest and make a compelling impression), condensed spiels, bullet points, about pages, thumbnail sketches, concise summaries of doctrinal essentials that attempt to specify the core of a sect’s beliefs.

I suppose a creed differentiates one denomination from the others, but even more the difference between Christianity and other faiths. From what I recall, all traditional Christian creeds share many elements, and don’t necessarily focus on peculiar, idiosyncratic dogmas held by a particular sect.

Just as a pastor, priest, or pope could be overly exalted to usurp the position of Christ, a creed could be overly exalted to equality with scriptures. Still, creeds are good to memorize and even to chant in worship services, as the Lutherans do.

 

[JonC]

I view creeds as “elevator speeches” (named for the brief duration of an elevator ride, its purpose is to quickly capture someone's interest and make a compelling impression), condensed spiels, bullet points, thumbnail sketches, concise summaries of doctrinal essentials that attempt to specify the core of a sect’s beliefs.

Just as a pastor, priest, or pope could be overly exalted to usurp the position of Christ, a creed could be overly exalted to equality with scriptures. Still, creeds are good to memorize and even to chant in worship services, as the Lutherans do.

They are. The problem is when they are used internally.

Externally they show other sects what a group believes. A Methodist can look at a Pentecostal confession and know where they disagree.

BUT internally it becomes an authority of indoctrination. Rather than descriptive they become prescriptive, effectively preventing members of any given sect from questioning the conclusions of their leaders.

 

[JesusFan]

Creeds and Confessions are great to see what any particular sect believes.

But the problem with the last paragraph should be obvious. People who hold creeds as truth rather than a statement of one sect's belief do elevate them to the level of Scripture even if unaware. Recently @Zaatar71 mentioned that he tests doctrine against creeds, for example.

Does a Calvinist turn to a Pentecostal Confession?
Does an Arminian turn to a Calvinist Confession?
Does a Calvinist turn to a SDA confession of faith?

No, of course not.

People turn to confessions that express what their sect believes.

So as a statement of belief confessions are great. But too often this is not how they are used.

What Confessions of faith though exist that are not Reformed nor Baptist then?

 

[JonC]

What Confessions of faith though exist that are not Reformed nor Baptist then?

The Arminian confessions, Methodist confessions, Anabaptist confessions, Pentecostal confessions, Roman Catholic confessions, Mennonite confessions, Eastern Orthodox confessions, Lutheran confessions, Anglican confessions, Irvingian confessions, ...

 

[JesusFan]

The Arminian confessions, Methodist confessions, Anabaptist confessions, Pentecostal confessions, Roman Catholic confessions, Mennonite confessions, Eastern Orthodox confessions, Lutheran confessions, Anglican confessions, Irvingian confessions, ...

Those are not called Confessions though are they? As thought those were more akin to statement of beliefs or part of their systematic theology

 

[JonC]

Those are not called Confessions though are they? As thought those were more akin to statement of beliefs or part of their systematic theology

Yes. They are called Confessions.

The Schleitheim Confession is an Anabaptist Confessions.

The Arminian Confession of 1691 is an Arminian Confession.

The list goes on.

 

[JesusFan]

Yes. They are called Confessions.

The Schleitheim Confession is an Anabaptist Confessions.

The Arminian Confession of 1691 is an Arminian Confession.

The list goes on.

Learned something new, as did not know either one of those

 

[Reformed]

Creeds are nice summaries of the basic essence of Christian faith and are valuable as such, like an evangelism tract, a devout book, a commentary, the Philokalia collection of desert monk teachings, a daily devotional, a prayer compendium, or a Dave Christiano film. We are blessed to have these tools of holy assistance.

Creeds and confessions - especially historic ones that have stood the test of time - are anchored in biblical truth. It's as though they are a big neon arrow pointing to both the saving and sanctifying words of scripture. The Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, Westminster Confession of Faith, 1689 Second London Baptist Confession off Faith, Savoy Declaration, New Hampshire Confession et al. While they all confess specific doctrinal stands that we may agree or disagree with (like infant baptism) - they all agree on the primacy of the gospel, nature of God, deity of Christ, authority and sufficiency of scripture...I can go on. They were written by men who were basically saying, "Look! This what we believe, and what we believe is based on the truth of scripture!"

 

[JonC]

Learned something new, as did not know either one of those

Yea... that is what I meant by looking to Confessions is subjective. People look to confessions within their own sect.

They are good from an outside advantage as they tell others what a sect believes.

But they are bad from an inside perspective as they form an echo chamber to guard against any other understandings, even Scripture itself.

This was why I initially became interested in theology. I realized opposing views had readons for their understandings but we were always taught what a passage meant but never why in relation to other views.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

A couple of points:
Firstly, if you join a church that 'just believes the Bible,' you have no idea what it believes the Bible teaches, and no defence against it changing its mind. I do not foresee myself leaving my current church, but if for some reason I did, I would never join a church without a statement of faith that covered more than the basics because firstly I wouldn't know what I was getting into, and secondly it would be open to infiltration by people with other agendas.

The first Protestant confessions were written to show just where the new churches differed from the Roman Catholic church. The 1644 Baptist confession was designed to show, in a time of persecution, that the Baptist churches were orthodox in their beliefs, and not renegade like some of the Anabaptists. The 1689 Confession (actually produced in 1677) was also introduced at a time of persecution against the free churches, and was brought in to show the level of agreement between the Particular Baptists and the Presbyterians (Westminster Confession) and the Congregationalists (Savoy Confession). those three documents are similar in many places and helped to draw the non-conformist churches together at a very difficult time.

After the Toleration Act of 1689 which gave the Free churches the right to worship unhindered in their own buildings, many churches abandoned their confessions and this led to a period of great declension and the rise of Unitarianism. Those who are interested may read about it here:

Learning The Lessons of History (1)

Learning the Lessons of History The Salters’ Hall Synod of 1719 Henry Ford was quite forthright. “History,” he said, “is more or less bunk.” The Roman statesman Cicero had a very different view. “H…

marprelate.wordpress.com

Learning the Lessons of History (2)

[Read first I am sure that I cannot be alone in seeing remarkable parallels between the early 18th Century and today. In our own time we have seen a marked decline in Christian orthodoxy and teac…

marprelate.wordpress.com

The decline of orthodoxy in PCUSA, for example, can be traced to the abandonment of the WCF. In my view, statements of confessions of faith are vital to the health of Bible-believing churches.

 

[JesusFan]

A couple of points:
Firstly, if you join a church that 'just believes the Bible,' you have no idea what it believes the Bible teaches, and no defence against it changing its mind. I do not foresee myself leaving my current church, but if for some reason I did, I would never join a church without a statement of faith that covered more than the basics because firstly I wouldn't know what I was getting into, and secondly it would be open to infiltration by people with other agendas.

The first Protestant confessions were written to show just where the new churches differed from the Roman Catholic church. The 1644 Baptist confession was designed to show, in a time of persecution, that the Baptist churches were orthodox in their beliefs, and not renegade like some of the Anabaptists. The 1689 Confession (actually produced in 1677) was also introduced at a time of persecution against the free churches, and was brought in to show the level of agreement between the Particular Baptists and the Presbyterians (Westminster Confession) and the Congregationalists (Savoy Confession). those three documents are similar in many places and helped to draw the non-conformist churches together at a very difficult time.

After the Toleration Act of 1689 which gave the Free churches the right to worship unhindered in their own buildings, many churches abandoned their confessions and this led to a period of great declension and the rise of Unitarianism. Those who are interested may read about it here:

Learning The Lessons of History (1)

Learning the Lessons of History The Salters’ Hall Synod of 1719 Henry Ford was quite forthright. “History,” he said, “is more or less bunk.” The Roman statesman Cicero had a very different view. “H…

marprelate.wordpress.com

Learning the Lessons of History (2)

[Read first I am sure that I cannot be alone in seeing remarkable parallels between the early 18th Century and today. In our own time we have seen a marked decline in Christian orthodoxy and teac…

marprelate.wordpress.com

The decline of orthodoxy in PCUSA, for example, can be traced to the abandonment of the WCF. In my view, statements of confessions of faith are vital to the health of Bible-believing churches.

There are 2 extremes to avoid regarding Creeds and Coinfessions, one would be to essential place them on par with Bible, and the other is to say no worth at all, as we hold to Bible only

 

[JonC]

There are 2 extremes to avoid regarding Creeds and Coinfessions, one would be to essential place them on par with Bible, and the other is to say no worth at all, as we hold to Bible only

Which confessions?

The Augsburg Confession (Lutheran)

The Schleitheim Confession of 1527 (Anabaptist)

The Arminian Confession of 1621

A Catechism and Confession of Faith (Quaker)

The Seventh Day Adventist Statenents of Faith

The Romanian Pentecostal Confession


Confessions are useful in knowing what a given sect believes. But insofar as studying God's Word, they are useless. Men choose the confession that suits their understanding and tradition. These must be ser aside in order to study the Bible.

It does not matter what Scripture means to you. It matters what Scripture means.

 

[JesusFan]

Which confessions?

The Augsburg Confession (Lutheran)

The Schleitheim Confession of 1527 (Anabaptist)

The Arminian Confession of 1621

A Catechism and Confession of Faith (Quaker)

The Seventh Day Adventist Statenents of Faith

The Romanian Pentecostal Confession


Confessions are useful in knowing what a given sect believes. But insofar as studying God's Word, they are useless. Men choose the confession that suits their understanding and tradition. These must be ser aside in order to study the Bible.

It does not matter what Scripture means to you. It matters what Scripture means.

Do you accept that the Holy Spirit has gifted to us bible teachers and expositors that will be able to better explain to us what scriptures teach and how to apply them?