How "No Creed but the Bible" Subverts the Bible

[church mouse guy]

No I do not. I think that particular part is based on a faulty understanding of Ephesians 4:9 and 1 Peter 3:19. When my church recites this creed we use a more modern version of it which speaks of our Lord as 'descending into the place of the dead' (i.e. the tomb) from which he arose on the third day. This is in line with what I wrote in post #9.
However, the Apostles' Creed (not written by the Apostles, but quite ancient) is extremely helpful. It sets out the deity of our Lord, His incarnation, humiliation, passion, resurrection and personal return in glory at the end of the age. It is good for congregations to be reminded of these basic truths from time to time.

I understand that you may not like Creeds and Confessions. They were written to protect churches from those who would undermine the basic doctrines of the Faith (2 Thessalonians 2:1-2; 2 Timothy 4:2-3; Jude 3-4).

Jeremiah 6:14. 'This is what the LORD says: "Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls." But you said, "We will not walk in it."'

I think that in third wave Protestant churches such Baptists creeds have been replaced by doctrinal statements. If I am looking into a denomination, I want to see their doctrinal statement. Campbell ducked the issue by saying something like where the Bible speaks we speak. That's fine but I do not know what you believe. I don't have time for heterodox ideas at my time of life.

 

[37818]

Either the written word of God is the written word of God alone or it is not. Either the 66 book Bible or it is not.

Statements of faith (creeds) are not the God breathed written word of God, else the written 66 book Bible as the sole authority is a falsehood. Then a Bible plus other authorities. Not Baptist.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

It is words like the last few posts that allowed the apostate Modernist heretics to take over the Northern Baptist Convention and then stay in power.

 

[37818]

It is words like the last few posts that allowed the apostate Modernist heretics to take over the Northern Baptist Convention and then stay in power.

Please explain. Please make a case in point. I am not against statements of faith. I am against statements of faith superseding the Bible.

 

[church mouse guy]

Either the written word of God is the written word of God alone or it is not. Either the 66 book Bible or it is not.

Statements of faith (creeds) are not the God breathed written word of God, else the written 66 book Bible as the sole authority is a falsehood. Then a Bible plus other authorities. Not Baptist.

I don't think that it is either or. Of course, Scripture is the sole authority but if someone asks what you believe and you have no doctrinal statement, what are they to do? Don't Fundamentalists list the Fundamentals of the faith? I am not interested in a denomination or stand-alone congregation that cannot give me a written statement of their beliefs and it better not be childish. For example, when I recently became interested in Answers in Genesis, I checked out their belief statement just as I did a few years ago with Utah Lighthouse Mission even though I already knew that Sandra Tanner was one of the greatest experts on Mormonism.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Did you read the article linked to in the OP? It was written in the context of the NBC battles. Back then you had the Modernists, what the SBC calls the Conservative Resurgence, and the uncommitted. The conservatives wanted to define terms with the adoption of the New Hampshire Confession. The Modernists piously cried, "No Creed but the Bible." The uncommitted voted with the Modernists.

Please see David Beale's In Search of Purity and Larry Oats To the Parise of His Glory for a fuller treatment of the battle. As to my seemingly harsh words describing the Modernists and Liberals, please see J. Gresham Machen's Christianity and Liberalism.

Please explain. Please make a case in point. I am not against statements of faith. I am against statements of faith superseding the Bible.

 

[37818]

So you believe Jesus "descended into Hell"?

Yes. We are told that His soul did not remain there (Acts of the Apostles 2:27) as a case in point.

 

[37818]

I don't think that it is either or. Of course, Scripture is the sole authority but if someone asks what you believe and you have no doctrinal statement, what are they to do? Don't Fundamentalists list the Fundamentals of the faith? I am not interested in a denomination or stand-alone congregation that cannot give me a written statement of their beliefs and it better not be childish. For example, when I recently became interested in Answers in Genesis, I checked out their belief statement just as I did a few years ago with Utah Lighthouse Mission even though I already knew that Sandra Tanner was one of the greatest experts on Mormonism.

I am not against statements of faith. I am against statments of faith take above and over Holy Scrpture.

 

[asterisktom]

Statements of faith are actually useful. When choosing a church it can be helpful. That is not what I am arguing against. Statements of faith do not assume the same authoritative gravitas that creeds often do.

 

[JonC]

I am not against statements of faith. I am against statments of faith take above and over Holy Scrpture.

I think that's the key. We all have our understandings and interpretations which should correspond with the way others have viewed Scripture. We gravitate to those with a common understanding. A creed or confession is a starement which expresses this common belief.

But the expression of a common belief (or common interpretation) is not Scripture itself. It is up to each geneneration to revisit and reexamine these expressions. As useful as creeds and confessions may be to summarize or explain, they can never become our authority. The Scripture behind these creeds and confessions are where our faith has to rest.

That is why my answer to "no creeds but the Bible" is no authority but Scripture. "No creed but the Bible" is a creed in and of itself. We go beyond our subjective belief to objective Scripture.

 

[Van]

He has a number of problems. First, he lists only "particular" creeds which shows his slant on things. The author is trying to push Calvinism 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.

Spot on MartyF

I worked on helping to formulate a "What we believe" statement for a local Baptist church. After an initial draft from our Pastor, each of the Elders did a mark-up. We added some items, and reworded others.

It allowed for a Calvinist interpretation, but just as certainly it allowed for a non-Calvinist interpretation.

One thing was certain, we believe God spreads His kingdom by persuasion, not compulsion. But then we were Baptists, who believe in the competency of believers.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think that in third wave Protestant churches such Baptists creeds have been replaced by doctrinal statements. If I am looking into a denomination, I want to see their doctrinal statement. Campbell ducked the issue by saying something like where the Bible speaks we speak. That's fine but I do not know what you believe. I don't have time for heterodox ideas at my time of life.

You are right that doctrinal statements have superseded creeds to a large extent. But you're not going to get a congregation to recite the 1689 Confession together. You are also right that 'we believe the Bible' is not sufficient. One needs to know what the church or denomination thinks the Bible teaches.

Either the written word of God is the written word of God alone or it is not. Either the 66 book Bible or it is not.

Statements of faith (creeds) are not the God breathed written word of God, else the written 66 book Bible as the sole authority is a falsehood. Then a Bible plus other authorities. Not Baptist.

There was a baptist confession as early as 1644. But what you fail to understand is that a confession or creed establishes the Bible as the sole authority. Just in case you missed it in post #7, here is the opening paragraph of the 1689 Baptist Confession: The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience' (1:1). That is a protection against people adding to Scripture.

The English Baptist Union has gone to pieces because it is not protected by a Confession of faith. One of the flagship B.U. churches, Mutley Baptist Church in Plymouth, has been torn apart over homosexuality and same-sex marriage. It has come to something when people are leaving a Baptist church to join an Anglican one because the latter is more faithful to the Bible! But that is what is happening in Plymouth.

 

[Reformed]

There was a baptist confession as early as 1644. But what you fail to understand is that a confession or creed establishes the Bible as the sole authority. Just in case you missed it in post #7, here is the opening paragraph of the 1689 Baptist Confession: The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience' (1:1). That is a protection against people adding to Scripture.

IMHO critics do not miss this point, they dismiss it. It fits into their presupposition that all creeds/confessions are extra-biblical and subvert the Bible. Of course, they do not get it that once you ask them what they believe about a point of doctrine they give you their opinion which is tantamount to a confession (Romans 10:9). The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith is a doctrinal statement. It points the reader to the Word of God. It offers commentary on what the Bible teaches but it is not the Bible. No matter how many times you point this out to a critic they will refute it. It is better to just leave them to their own wisdom and move on down the road.

 

[Marooncat79]

There are actually confessions or creeds in The new testament

If one does not believe in a creed or confession why do you have sermons? Confessions or creeds serve to codify what christians should believe about a specific topic of the Bible ie the Doctrine of God, the Church etc.


Just google it

 

[asterisktom]

There are actually confessions or creeds in The new testament

If one does not believe in a creed or confession why do you have sermons? Confessions or creeds serve to codify what christians should believe about a specific topic of the Bible ie the Doctrine of God, the Church etc.


Just google it

Creeds in the NT? Where? And the word :codify" implies someone else's imposing of what they believe we should believe. This Baptist believes in soul liberty.

What Christians should believe is the Bible. If a person doubts my particular beliefs A, B, or C. he needs to show me from the Bible why I am wrong. If he convinces me he has my gratitude and respect. Even if I am not convinced I still respect someone who tries to use Scripture to make his point.

Sermons? I do believe that sermons have gained undue prominence over the centuries. The first century churches did not have one person doing all the talking and one hundred or more doing all the listening. What is the Greek word for pew?

 

[JonC]

One of my favorites, and a comment I believe can be applied here (although spoken about election):

“But if you do not see it to be here in the Bible, whatever I may say, or whatever authorities I may plead, I beg you as you love your souls, reject it; and if from this pulpit you ever hear things contrary to this sacred word, remember that the Bible must be the first, and God’s minister must be subject to it. We must not stand on the Bible to preach, but we must preach with the Bible above our heads. After all we have preached, we are well aware that the mountain of truth is higher than our eyes can discern; clouds and darkness are around its summit, and we cannot discern its topmost pinnacle; yet we will try to preach it as well as we can. But since we are mortal and liable to error, exercise your judgment; “Test the spirits to see whether they are from God;” and if on mature reflection on your bended knees, you are led to disregard election–a thing which I consider utterly impossible–then forsake it, don’t listen to it preached, but believe and confess whatever you see to be God’s word. I can say no more than that by way of introduction.” Spurgeon

 

[rsr]

There was a baptist confession as early as 1644.

Any particular (so to speak) reason you didn't pick the Helwys confession of 1611 as the first Baptist confession?

But what you fail to understand is that a confession or creed establishes the Bible as the sole authority. Just in case you missed it in post #7, here is the opening paragraph of the 1689 Baptist Confession: The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience' (1:1). That is a protection against people adding to Scripture.

As did the Helwys confession: "That the scriptures of the Old and New Testament are written for our instruction, (2 Timothy 3:16) &that we ought to search them for they testify of CHRIST, (10:5. 39). And therefore to be used withal reverence, as containing the Holy Word of GOD, which only is our direction in al things whatsoever. (emphasis added)."

 

[MartyF]

I was about to say the same thing as rsr.

I like Helwys' confession far better.

Please see David Beale's In Search of Purity and Larry Oats To the Parise of His Glory for a fuller treatment of the battle. As to my seemingly harsh words describing the Modernists and Liberals, please see J. Gresham Machen's Christianity and Liberalism.

I tried to find the first book and only found . . .

https://www.amazon.com/Search-Purit...550467117&sr=8-1&keywords=in+search+of+purity

To the Parise of His Glory seems to be a biography. It might be interesting, but biographies are usually one sided in favor of the protagonist.

I might read Christianity and Liberalism. It's pretty easy to get. From what I can tell, he is talking about Unitarians. Do unitarians = liberalism? I guess I'll have to read the book to find out.

That being said, some people seem to think that having no creed means the death of the church. The SBC had no "creed" from 1845 to 1920 something. SBC didn't die a horrible death at that time.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Sorry I goofed on the book title. It's In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850
Yes, To the Praise of His Glory is a biography. However, Dr. Oats does a fairly good job of setting up the milieu B. Myron Cedarholm found himself in.
As for

The SBC had no "creed" from 1845 to 1920 something. SBC didn't die a horrible death at that time.

1920 is the start of the fight in the NBC. We can see where the SBC went with a "creed." And where the NBC went without one.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

If only the PCUSA, the United Methodists, the Episcopalians and others would have had creeds, they would have been protected from modernism.....

Oh, wait....nvm.