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