Creeds and Confessions

[DaveXR650]

These must be ser aside in order to study the Bible.

Jon, I just think that is horrible advice. And believe me, I didn't always think that way and even specifically asked my pastor years ago if it was even proper to have a creed or confession. Fortunately, even though he was an independent Baptist, he said yes and fortunately I sought and listened to his advice. And that is what it all comes down to, really. Do we really have such a high opinion of our own Bible study that we purposely avoid the combined Bible study of wise men in the faith who have preceded us.

I don't see why using creeds, as well as preaching and teaching of others in any way impairs you own Bible study, which is indeed important.

 

[JesusFan]

Jon, I just think that is horrible advice. And believe me, I didn't always think that way and even specifically asked my pastor years ago if it was even proper to have a creed or confession. Fortunately, even though he was an independent Baptist, he said yes and fortunately I sought and listened to his advice. And that is what it all comes down to, really. Do we really have such a high opinion of our own Bible study that we purposely avoid the combined Bible study of wise men in the faith who have preceded us.

I don't see why using creeds, as well as preaching and teaching of others in any way impairs you own Bible study, which is indeed important.

We are to see the Bible as the supreme and only inspred authority for all doctrines, but still can use other bible tools for profit

 

[JonC]

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?

I accept that God gifts congregations with evangelists, apostles, pastors and teachers to equip the saints. (Eph 4).

But I believe that God-given teachers teach the words of God rather than their understanding.

The problem is people take that passage out of context to say we are to follow the teaching of men they like, often men not given to their congregation (not members gifted those roles to function within that local church).

So the Seventh Day Adventist may say Ellen White is a God-given teacher. A Calvinist may say John Owen is a God-given teacher. A Methodist may say John Wesley is a God-given teacher.

But Christians are to test all teachings to make sure what is taught is actually God's words. That is rarely done.

And, remember the context of that passage. Who among us attends church with John Knox? Nobody. He is not a teacher God has given to any congregation today.

 

[JesusFan]

I accept that God gifts congregations with evangelists, apostles, pastors and teachers to equip the saints. (Eph 4).

But I believe that God-given teachers teach the words of God rather than their understanding.

The problem is people take that passage out of context to say we are to follow the teaching of men they like, often men not given to their congregation (not members gifted those roles to function within that local church).

So the Seventh Day Adventist may say Ellen White is a God-given teacher. A Calvinist may say John Owen is a God-given teacher. A Methodist may say John Wesley is a God-given teacher.

But Christians are to test all teachings to make sure what is taught is actually God's words. That is rarely done.

And, remember the context of that passage. Who among us attends church with John Knox? Nobody. He is not a teacher God has given to any congregation today.

No, but we still have today the books written by mighty men of ther past, rich in doctrines and applications, unless we would say that we can learn nothing from likes of a Spurgeon, Sproul, macArthur and their like?

 

[JonC]

Jon, I just think that is horrible advice. And believe me, I didn't always think that way and even specifically asked my pastor years ago if it was even proper to have a creed or confession. Fortunately, even though he was an independent Baptist, he said yes and fortunately I sought and listened to his advice. And that is what it all comes down to, really. Do we really have such a high opinion of our own Bible study that we purposely avoid the combined Bible study of wise men in the faith who have preceded us.

I don't see why using creeds, as well as preaching and teaching of others in any way impairs you own Bible study, which is indeed important.

We do disagree.

Would you use The Romanian Pentecostal Confession in your study of Scripture?

Probably not because you do not agree with Pentecostalism. I cannot see what it would add to your study.

But you might. Still, I do not know why.

When used for study Confessions only serve to reinforce the understandings of the sect to whom the confession belong.

Scripture is not as difficult as you seem to think.


Paul was a scholar. Paul was a theologian. He was an expert in Scripture. He was a student of Gamaliel. And Paul did not understand God's words. Throughout his theology he missed the Messiah.

This changed on the road to Damascus with an encounter with Christ. He was mentored in the faith by a Hellenstic Jew (not a theologian or scholar, but a faithful Christian) named Barnabus.

Theology does not do what you think it does.

 

[JonC]

No, but we still have today the books written by mighty men of ther past, rich in doctrines and applications, unless we would say that we can learn nothing from likes of a Spurgeon, Sproul, macArthur and their like?

We can learn things from Spurgeon, John Wesley, John Yoder, John Owen, Charles Finney, Billy Graham, Janes Arminius, etc.

But we need to test what they teach against God's Word and discard what is not God's words.

 

[DaveXR650]

Would you use The Romanian Pentecostal Confession in your study of Scripture?

Probably not because you do not agree with Pentecostalism. I cannot see what it would add to your study.

Of course not. In my little world I am not aware of any Romanian Pentecostalists, nor of a church that subscribes to that confession. My own church, lists 4 confessions and advises them for study but being independent Baptist does not "subscribe" to any or demand official recognition of any. Does every reply have to be immediately escalated to a level of ridiculousness?

 

[DaveXR650]

We are to see the Bible as the supreme and only inspred authority for all doctrines, but still can use other bible tools for profit

Yes. That is the proper use of Sola Scriptura. Some of the guys on here I doubt whether they even would go hear someone else preach. It would violate their standard to hear someone else expound on a passage.

 

[JonC]

Of course not. In my little world I am not aware of any Romanian Pentecostalists, nor of a church that subscribes to that confession. My own church, lists 4 confessions and advises them for study but being independent Baptist does not "subscribe" to any or demand official recognition of any. Does every reply have to be immediately escalated to a level of ridiculousness?

It is not ridiculous. The Reformed confessions were not written by Illinoisans, or New Yorkers.

Just because you do not recognize that confession does not mean Pentecostals do not.

Would you use the Arminian Confession of 1621?

Do you see my point? Men choose confessions based on their sect, the confessions that match what they believe.

Using the statements of men who agree with what you belive is not a good way to study. It is subjective and dependent on your understanding.

 

[DaveXR650]

It is not ridiculous. The Reformed confessions were not written by Illinoisans, or New Yorkers.

No but if you go to a Reformed church or if you are considering going, or know someone else who is considering joining then the Reformed confession would have relevance even if you were in Illinois. You are under no obligation as a Christian to amass and study various confessions to broaden your horizons.

Do you see my point? Men choose confessions based on their sect, the confessions that match what they believe.

I agree. My point is that Reformed confessions mean something to me, Romanian Pentecostal confessions don't. They probably are interesting but you don't have time for everything.

Would you use the Arminian Confession of 1621?

I was not even aware of it's existence. But I have some of the writings of Arminius, some writings of modern Free Will Baptists explanation of Arminius, and Arminius making his defense against the pamphlets of Perkins. So I might at some point indeed look at it. Thanks.

You have to remember that among independent fundamental Baptists there used to be at least, an open animosity to all creeds and confessions. I'm not saying that was right, just that it was the opinion.

 

[JonC]

No but if you go to a Reformed church or if you are considering going, or know someone else who is considering joining then the Reformed confession would have relevance even if you were in Illinois. You are under no obligation as a Christian to amass and study various confessions to broaden your horizons.

I agree. My point is that Reformed confessions mean something to me, Romanian Pentecostal confessions don't. They probably are interesting but you don't have time for everything.

I was not even aware of it's existence. But I have some of the writings of Arminius, some writings of modern Free Will Baptists explanation of Arminius, and Arminius making his defense against the pamphlets of Perkins. So I might at some point indeed look at it. Thanks.

You have to remember that among independent fundamental Baptists there used to be at least, an open animosity to all creeds and confessions. I'm not saying that was right, just that it was the opinion.

Oh....I agree that confessions are great to allow others to see what a sect believes. I always look at the beliefs of a church when moving to an area.

I misunderstood your post.

 

[Reformed]

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.

Without naming names some who oppose creeds and confessions do so for nefarious purposes. They present themselves as being noble. "No creed but the Bible!" But for reasons that you stated well, those individuals - with some leading churches and entire denominations - have a difficult time telling you what they believe the Bible teaches. Modern day Evangelicalism is so full of watered down preaching, and an almost apologetic view of the Cross, that their practical use of the Bible is as no more than a door stop. When I moved to my current location 10 years ago the first thing I looked for in a church is a statement of what it believed the Bible teaches about the great doctrines and practices of the faith. Let's just say is was easy to strike off dozens of churches by just a quick visit to their website. Modern technology can be a real time saver. And just because a church "made the cut" based on their doctrinal statement didn't mean the church actually practiced what they stated to believe. There are many churches where I live that started off soundly decades prior only to abandon their founding beliefs through doctrinal drift.

While I have an affinity and appreciation for the 1689 LBC I did not make it a litmus test for evaluating a church. The church I am attending has a comprehensive doctrinal statement is derived from some solid historic confessions. It's statement on christology would make the framers of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds proud. Thankfully, I have found that as much as a human being is capable of being faithful to scripture, church leadership has done so. I know that my account is anecdotal, but I strongly believe this is what we are supposed to do when evaluating a church. I question any church that either hides what they believe or deconstructs their doctrinal statement to such a degree it doesn't even qualify as a list of ingredients.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Schleitheim Confession is an Anabaptist Confessions.

True, but if you wanted to use it to find out about the theological views of Anabaptists, as I once did, you would be disappointed. It has very little to say about theology - nothing that I could find about the nature of God, Christ or salvation - and deals mostly with matters of church order and morality.

 

[JonC]

True, but if you wanted to use it to find out about the theological views of Anabaptists, as I once did, you would be disappointed. It has very little to say about theology - nothing that I could find about the nature of God, Christ or salvation - and deals mostly with matters of church order and morality.

Yes, I agree. But all confessions are like that (they concentrate on specific areas that needed highlighted at a given time and grow as the need arises).

 

[JonC]

Without naming names some who oppose creeds and confessions do so for nefarious purposes. They present themselves as being noble. "No creed but the Bible!" But for reasons that you stated well, those individuals - with some leading churches and entire denominations - have a difficult time telling you what they believe the Bible teaches. Modern day Evangelicalism is so full of watered down preaching, and an almost apologetic view of the Cross, that their practical use of the Bible is as no more than a door stop. When I moved to my current location 10 years ago the first thing I looked for in a church is a statement of what it believed the Bible teaches about the great doctrines and practices of the faith. Let's just say is was easy to strike off dozens of churches by just a quick visit to their website. Modern technology can be a real time saver. And just because a church "made the cut" based on their doctrinal statement didn't mean the church actually practiced what they stated to believe. There are many churches where I live that started off soundly decades prior only to abandon their founding beliefs through doctrinal drift.

While I have an affinity and appreciation for the 1689 LBC I did not make it a litmus test for evaluating a church. The church I am attending has a comprehensive doctrinal statement is derived from some solid historic confessions. It's statement on christology would make the framers of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds proud. Thankfully, I have found that as much as a human being is capable of being faithful to scripture, church leadership has done so. I know that my account is anecdotal, but I strongly believe this is what we are supposed to do when evaluating a church. I question any church that either hides what they believe or deconstructs their doctrinal statement to such a degree it doesn't even qualify as a list of ingredients.

The Church of Christ is like that ("No Creeds but the Bible"). To be fair, in America most Baptist churches were like that in the 1970's, and some still are.

I would hesitate to attend a church that did not have some type of confession of their faith. You would not know what you were getting into. And that is always the first thing I look for before attending a new church.



Imagine going to a new church, no confession or statement of what they believe.

You have a seat in a pew, talk to those by you. They sing a song. And then they pull out the snakes!!!!


Like I said, when moving to a new area I always look at a churches confession of faith. Unfortunately these often do not let you know if they hold those confessions as confessions or statements of authority. But at least I know what I am getting into before I choose to attend.

No snakes.

 

[JesusFan]

Yes. That is the proper use of Sola Scriptura. Some of the guys on here I doubt whether they even would go hear someone else preach. It would violate their standard to hear someone else expound on a passage.

We can and should learn form the gifted expositors and teachers from past and present, as the Holy Spirit did send them as gifts to the churches to teach to us better the doctrines and applications of the bible . They are not Calvinists, but I have learned form those such as a wiersbe, Ryrie, Tozier etc, and hopefully some non cals learned from a Spurgeon or a MaCarthur or a Sproul

 

[JesusFan]

Oh....I agree that confessions are great to allow others to see what a sect believes. I always look at the beliefs of a church when moving to an area.

I misunderstood your post.

The Creeds and Confessions would be detailing to us what Christians on the whole see the bible as meaning to us

 

[JesusFan]

Without naming names some who oppose creeds and confessions do so for nefarious purposes. They present themselves as being noble. "No creed but the Bible!" But for reasons that you stated well, those individuals - with some leading churches and entire denominations - have a difficult time telling you what they believe the Bible teaches. Modern day Evangelicalism is so full of watered down preaching, and an almost apologetic view of the Cross, that their practical use of the Bible is as no more than a door stop. When I moved to my current location 10 years ago the first thing I looked for in a church is a statement of what it believed the Bible teaches about the great doctrines and practices of the faith. Let's just say is was easy to strike off dozens of churches by just a quick visit to their website. Modern technology can be a real time saver. And just because a church "made the cut" based on their doctrinal statement didn't mean the church actually practiced what they stated to believe. There are many churches where I live that started off soundly decades prior only to abandon their founding beliefs through doctrinal drift.

While I have an affinity and appreciation for the 1689 LBC I did not make it a litmus test for evaluating a church. The church I am attending has a comprehensive doctrinal statement is derived from some solid historic confessions. It's statement on christology would make the framers of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds proud. Thankfully, I have found that as much as a human being is capable of being faithful to scripture, church leadership has done so. I know that my account is anecdotal, but I strongly believe this is what we are supposed to do when evaluating a church. I question any church that either hides what they believe or deconstructs their doctrinal statement to such a degree it doesn't even qualify as a list of ingredients.

The Baptist Church that I am a member of and attend would be non Calvinist, but in the major doctrines and issues would agree, and allow for one as Baptist to hold to a differing view on certain doctrines

 

[JesusFan]

The Church of Christ is like that ("No Creeds but the Bible"). To be fair, in America most Baptist churches were like that in the 1970's, and some still are.

I would hesitate to attend a church that did not have some type of confession of their faith. You would not know what you were getting into. And that is always the first thing I look for before attending a new church.



Imagine going to a new church, no confession or statement of what they believe.

You have a seat in a pew, talk to those by you. They sing a song. And then they pull out the snakes!!!!


Like I said, when moving to a new area I always look at a churches confession of faith. Unfortunately these often do not let you know if they hold those confessions as confessions or statements of authority. But at least I know what I am getting into before I choose to attend.

No snakes.

All Baptist churches pretty much have their own statement of beliefs, and also think even the SBC, while not into 1689 Confession, does have a srt of Confession of faith at national level