How "No Creed but the Bible" Subverts the Bible

[Martin Marprelate]

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

Exactly! That is the very reason that Spurgeon re-introduced the 1689 Confession to his church in 1855 and had a copy of it buried in the foundations of the Metropolitan Tabernacle when it was built.

It was because he believed in Scripture Alone that he deemed a confession to be so absolutely necessary.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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

Yes. A very good reason indeed. I forgot about it.

 

[asterisktom]

BTW when I first entered my Reformed stage (what Sproul Jr. referred to as the "cage" stage!) I was quite interested with all things Reformed, including studying out the various Confessions, especially the WCF. So I am not arguing my case from mere ignorance.

Although I still believe in the five Sola's I hesitate to call myself Reformed or Calvinist because of the additional baggage of those two terms.

But I noticed a tendency, both in myself and in my co-elder; Confessions tend to, over time, impose an interpretive and domineering grid over the Word of God. It is very subtle but it happens. It ends up, all too often, that the Confessions become our teachers and not the Bible.

Christ told us:'

"A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher." Luke 6:40

Now, if we admit that confessions and creeds are not as perfect as the Bible, and need to be corrected (as in the "Jesus went to Hell" mistake) then this shows that our teacher (Creeds and Confessions) are not going to get us where we want to be. When we are fully trained we will be like our teacher - walking Creeds and Confessions.

By contrast we have the inspired observation of David:

"Oh how I love your law!
It is my meditation all the day.
Your commandment makes me wiser than my enemies,
for it is ever with me.
I have more understanding than all my teachers,
for your testimonies are my meditation.
I understand more than the aged,
for I keep your precepts." Psalm 119:97 - 100

It is much better to direct all of our efforts, study, and devotion to the perfect Word of God. This way we have a much brighter prospect of being like our blessed Teacher.

 

[JonC]

Exactly! That is the very reason that Spurgeon re-introduced the 1689 Confession to his church in 1855 and had a copy of it buried in the foundations of the Metropolitan Tabernacle when it was built.

It was because he believed in Scripture Alone that he deemed a confession to be so absolutely necessary.

Confessions represent more than Scripture. They involve interpretation, application, and often what a group deems a biblical response to cultural norms or issues.

For example - I am a SBC Christian. I affirm the SBC statenent of faith. This statement has been revised at times to reflect the SBC stance against perceived internal doctrinal errors, changes in the values of society, and to place emphises on aspects of held doctrine.

These creeds and confessions are important insofar as they explain what is orthodox to a paticular sect or group within Christianity. The problem comes in when a group views their belief as established by these tools.

 

[Reformed]

I am not a fan of the Helwys Confession at all, as paragraph 7 confesses that men may fall out of grace. I quote:

"And therefore let no man presume to think that because he hath, or had once grace, therefore he shall always have grace: But let all men have assurance, that if they continue unto the end, they shall be saved: Let no man then presume; but let all work out their salvation with fear and trembling."

The grace spoken of here is saving grace, which is always effectual towards the Elect. The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith does a better job of explaining Christians that fall into sin:

1689 2nd LBC 17:3 And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.

A true child of God can never fall from grace because they lack the power to do so, just as they lack the power to attain unto grace. Grace is wholly God-given and not based on human merit (Ephesians 2:8-9). A child of God may stumble, even severely, yet God has such a firm hold on them that they will renew their repentance unless God calls them home because of the prolific nature or severity of their sin (1 Corinthians 5:5; 11:30; James 5:20).

 

[Reformed]

The problem comes in when a group views their belief as established by these tools.

Agreed. Even in Reformed circles some Christians become lazy and defer to confessions and catechisms while neglecting ad fontes -- Scripture. It is good for that caution to be given, especially to those who profit from the historic creeds and confessions.

 

[37818]

Creeds in the NT? Where?

For one example, ". . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brothers at once; of whom the greater part remain to this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. . . ." -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-7.

 

[rsr]

I am not a fan of the Helwys Confession at all, as paragraph 7 confesses that men may fall out of grace.

Yes, it's Arminian, but my point is that the Helwys confession dates from 1611, well before the First London Confession.

 

[37818]

what you fail to understand is that a confession or creed establishes the Bible as the sole authority, . . .

No.

There is a difference between having "No creed" and having the Bible as the finial authroity. Which is having a creed.

 

[Reformed]

Yes, it's Arminian, but my point is that the Helwys confession dates from 1611, well before the First London Confession.

Understood.

 

[kyredneck]

So you believe Jesus "descended into Hell"?

No I do not. I think that particular part is based on a faulty understanding of Ephesians 4:9 and 1 Peter 3:19.

Concerning Joseph as a type of Christ, both type and Antitype were falsely accused, Joseph by an adulterous wife, Christ by an evil and adulterous generation (The Harlot). Joseph interpreted dreams in prison, Christ preached to the spirits in prison, and both type and Antitype were elevated from this prison and set at the right hand of The Ruler and the nations came to them for their food.

Just sayin.

 

[FollowTheWay]

A point of history:

As used by the Modernists\Liberals in the Nothern Baptist Convention, it referred to the push by conservatives to require missionaries and others getting Convention funding to agree to the New Hampshire Confession.

Another point of history. Did the Southern Baptist Convention have a standardized confession at the time elements of the Northern Baptist Convention made this attempt to agree to the New Hampshire Confession? Actually, there was no Northern Baptist Convention until 1907. Prior to that all Baptist churches belonged to the the national Triennial Convention established in in 1814. The Southern Baptist Convention withdrew in 1845 over slavery. In 1995, the SBC voted to adopt a resolution renouncing its racist roots and apologizing for its past defense of slavery, segregation, and white supremacy.[51][52] This marked the denomination's first formal acknowledgment that racism had a profound role in its early and modern history.

The name of the Northern Baptist Convention was changed in 1950 to the American Baptist Convention (ABC), and it operated under this name until 1972 when it again changed to American Baptist Churches USA.

 

[asterisktom]

But what you fail to understand is that a confession or creed establishes the Bible as the sole authority.

The Bible needs no such establishment or imprimitur. God's Word says it is already established. No creeds or confessions can add anything of value to those who truly honor the Bible and search truths from it as treasure.

 

[Jerome]

Another point of history. Did the Southern Baptist Convention have a standardized confession at the time elements of the Northern Baptist Convention made this attempt to agree to the New Hampshire Confession?

No!
And in fact the Northern attempt was hamstringed when the Southern Baptist Convention backed out of adopting a joint confession:

Southern Baptists Turn Down Proposed Confession

"actions taken by Southern Baptists at their annual meeting at Jacksonville...have particular interest for us in the North....The Columbia Conference held last January recommended that a committee should be appointed by the two conventions to draw up a new statement of Baptist fath and polity. This was rejected on the ground that there was no necessity for such a new statement on the part of Southern Baptists."

"Before the [Southern] convention met, it had been generally assumed that [it] would carry. Naturally there is much speculation now as to the effect on the [Northern] convention at Indianapolis of the rejection....Many, among the Fundamentalists and other groups in the North, had counted on such a committee as a way out of the present complicated situation."

"will the delegates conclude that our Southern brethren have pointed out to us the way of wisdom and peace? If the South needs no new statement, will the North gain anything by hastily putting one forth?"

 

[Jerome]

allowed the apostate Modernist heretics to take over the Northern Baptist Convention and then stay in power.

Same thing happened contemporanously in Northern Presbyterian Church (Fundamentalists lost it to Modernists) in which there was a Confession in place!

The OP article doesn't mention that though, doesn't fit his narrative. Sketchy.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Because he was concentrating on the NBC. How much do you want from a blog post? Also, the Modernist Presbyterians didn't use the phrase. While those in the NBC did. In Pursuit of Purity does cover the fight in the Presbyterians.

Same thing happened contemporaneously in Northern Presbyterian Church (Fundamentalists lost it to Modernists) in which there was a Confession in place!

The OP article doesn't mention that though, doesn't fit his narrative. Sketchy.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

IMHO, Criticizing the blog post linked to in the OP because the writer only deals with one denomination is like criticizing a blog post about the D-Day landings in Normandy because it doesn't mention the landings at Tarawa.

 

[church mouse guy]

The Bible needs no such establishment or imprimitur. God's Word says it is already established. No creeds or confessions can add anything of value to those who truly honor the Bible and search truths from it as treasure.

In the 19th century the plan was to dodge controversy. That failed. We now have deep divisions and controversies. We are divided over hermeneutics first of all. Not everyone believes Scripture is perfect. Life is short. I will save you time finding out what I believe. I believe every word of the BFM 2000. Now you know exactly, don't you?

 

[Jerome]

IMHO, Criticizing the blog post linked to in the OP because the writer only deals with one denomination is like criticizing a blog post about the D-Day landings in Normandy because it doesn't mention the landings at Tarawa.

The OP article is about Creeds, a Northern Baptist Convention episode is briefly mentioned to try to bolster his preference for Creedalism. Why not be fair and admit that the same thing happened in Presbyterianism, while they HAD a Creed? Doesnt take but a few words.

And as others have noted in this thread, the 'no creed but the Bible' idea is most identified with the Restorationist movement.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Bible needs no such establishment or imprimitur. God's Word says it is already established.

Psalm 119:89. 'Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled ['is established,' stands firm'] in heaven.'
However, you are living proof that it is not yet established on earth. Hence the need for creeds and confessions.