How "No Creed but the Bible" Subverts the Bible

[asterisktom]

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.

You could have quoted one of several other verses but, like you did with your Jeremiah blunder, you reached for a verse that seemed to support your position. Oh well.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Why not be fair and admit that the same thing happened in Presbyterianism, while they HAD a Creed? Doesnt take but a few words.

The apostasy of many Presbyterian denominations occurred when they abandoned or sidelined their confessions. I am more familiar with English and Scottish Presbyterianism than I am with Americans, but I did read the biography of J. Gresham Machen some years ago, and that appears to be what happened to PCUSA back in the 1920s.

Presbyterianism carries the seeds of its own destruction because of infant baptism, which brings unregenerate children into the covenant. However, that makes the need for a firm Confession of Faith even more important.

 

[church mouse guy]

The apostasy of many Presbyterian denominations occurred when they abandoned or sidelined their confessions. I am more familiar with English and Scottish Presbyterianism than I am with Americans, but I did read the biography of J. Gresham Machen some years ago, and that appears to be what happened to PCUSA back in the 1920s.

Presbyterianism carries the seeds of its own destruction because of infant baptism, which brings unregenerate children into the covenant. However, that makes the need for a firm Confession of Faith even more important.

I think that the last days of the PCUSA were when Carson Blake came to power. At that time, it was realized immediately that he was liberal and the once-packed Presbyterian churches began to decline to the vast empty caverns that they are today.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I think the problem is I come out of a Northern Baptist lineage both that of my home church and of my college. I have had no contact with the SBC.

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? Doesn't 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.

 

[church mouse guy]

I think the problem is I come out of a Northern Baptist lineage both that of my home church and of my college. I have had no contact with the SBC.

What is your opinion of your former church?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. My home church left the NBC before I was born. It was founded as a Northern Baptist Church in 1881. Keep in mind, the NBC was formed in 1907.

What is your opinion of your former church?

 

[FollowTheWay]

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?"

I have to admit this was a bit of a rhetorical question. I grew up in an SBC church and always viewed the "Baptist Faith and Message" as the SBC statement of faith. But it was always emphasized this was NOT a creed. These were released in 1925, 1963, and 2000. When I was working for at&t in NJ, I belonged to an American Baptist church which was a great church, not at all like many here seem to think. The pastor and chairman of the deacons were instrumental in bringing both my brother and I all the way home from the far country after being brought up in a strong Christian home. My brother made the decision to become a minister in that church, graduated from the Southern Baptist Seminary and is an ordained SBC minister.

Since coming back to the South 12 years ago, I have belonged to a dual aligned CBF/SBC church which just recently cut its ties with the CBF after being rather significant in its formation. Their initial proposal was to take references to both the CBF and the SBC out of their By-Laws because "the SBC might change in the future to the extent that we no longer want to formally associate with them." I think this was considering the recent change to a younger, more progressive President for the first time in decades. I successfully argued that if we were going to cut ties to the CBF it shouldn't be hidden but clearly stated.

It is true that the American Baptists still do not have a convention-wide creed. But individual churches create their own statement of faith which can be very much like the well-known confessions. As a Deacon, I drafted the initial statement which was then edited by the other Deacons and the Pastor and presented to the church which approved it. I almost exclusively followed the New Hampshire Confession of 1863 which I personally still accept as the statement of my faith. It is very much like the 1925 BF&M. But the 1963 and 2000 BF&M's made changes to this statement primarily on Eternal Security (1963) and The Family (2000). I have issues with both of these changes but the historical SBC allowed for a personal interpretation of our faith. The Fundamentalist takeover of the SBC and especially the installation of Albert Mohler as the President of Southern Seminary changed this by hardening the BF&M into a Creed that must be signed by seminary professors and missionaries.

Therefore, the question of whether or not the SBC has a creed is a moot point. We have a creed.