The 3 C's: CoF's, Creeds & Catechisms.

[preacher4truth]

What is wrong with using any of these?

Some here deem alluding to these means unequivocally that one is placing them authoritatively above Scripture and has denied sola scriptura.

Is such an accusation true?

Does speaking of or quoting a CoF (&c) conclude that the one doing so is using these as an authority above Scripture? Is this type of allegation short-sighted and false, or is it accurate and true?

 

[Mexdeaf]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]From: http://www.preceptaustin.org/romans_215-29.htm#2:17

"Catechized" is idea of oral instruction especially associated with teaching by repetition. Both at home and in the synagogues, Jewish boys in particular were systematically and thoroughly instructed out of the Law. The Law was read and explained every Sabbath. Not only rabbis but also many other Jewish men memorized large portions of the OT, which they often recited in public as a demonstration of piety. It is ironic that ancient Jews considered wisdom to consist of acting according to the knowledge one had, whereas the ancient Greeks simply equated wisdom with knowledge. By New Testament times, however, many Jews, especially the religious leaders, had, in practice, accepted the Greek view of wisdom. Whether they did so intentionally or not, the consequence was that they felt content with merely knowing God’s law and had little desire or motivation to obey it. They knew much but obeyed little.

We today recognize the spiritual blindness of the Jew, but the blade cuts both ways. The sword that pierces the heart of the religious Jew also pierces ours. It is easy to imagine we are okay because we know so much more about the Bible than the average person on the street, especially in this day of Biblical illiteracy. We can read the Bible in twenty-five versions if we want. Some of us carry around Bibles that have as many as eight parallel translations. It is a great temptation for the pastor to imagine that, as he struts to the pulpit carrying his Hebrew Bible in one hand and the Greek in the other, he is okay, when in fact he may have a heart of stone.[/FONT]

 

[Thousand Hills]

P4T, I would like to explore using some sort of catechism for my daughter and any future children that the Lord might bless us with. What would you or anybody else recommend from a reformed Baptist position.

Also, don't know that this answers the OP, but while I haven't studied all the various historic creeds and confessions, I increasingly see the need in this day and age that a local church body have more consistency in what its members believe then what we often see today. While a place like BB is fine for bouncing around different takes on scripture, a local body cannot be efficient without some uniformity in belief. I imagine in my church you could walk into 5 different Sunday School classes, and even though the scripture lesson might be the same, you'd still get five different takes depending upon who is teaching (some more conservative some more liberal).

 

[agedman]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]From: http://www.preceptaustin.org/romans_215-29.htm#2:17

"Catechized" is idea of oral instruction especially associated with teaching by repetition. Both at home and in the synagogues, Jewish boys in particular were systematically and thoroughly instructed out of the Law. The Law was read and explained every Sabbath. Not only rabbis but also many other Jewish men memorized large portions of the OT, which they often recited in public as a demonstration of piety. It is ironic that ancient Jews considered wisdom to consist of acting according to the knowledge one had, whereas the ancient Greeks simply equated wisdom with knowledge. By New Testament times, however, many Jews, especially the religious leaders, had, in practice, accepted the Greek view of wisdom. Whether they did so intentionally or not, the consequence was that they felt content with merely knowing God’s law and had little desire or motivation to obey it. They knew much but obeyed little.

We today recognize the spiritual blindness of the Jew, but the blade cuts both ways. The sword that pierces the heart of the religious Jew also pierces ours. It is easy to imagine we are okay because we know so much more about the Bible than the average person on the street, especially in this day of Biblical illiteracy. We can read the Bible in twenty-five versions if we want. Some of us carry around Bibles that have as many as eight parallel translations. It is a great temptation for the pastor to imagine that, as he struts to the pulpit carrying his Hebrew Bible in one hand and the Greek in the other, he is okay, when in fact he may have a heart of stone.[/FONT]

There is no doubt that in some there is knowledge that does not mean knowledge.

Equating the Jews (who are purposely blinded according to Scriptures in this age) to those who find a certain measure of reassurance in Creeds and Confessions of Faith is really not equitable.

When I have occasionally read the various Conf. of Faith and Creeds, I don't look so much for agreement, but at which item I might have a Scriptural cause to disagree.

So, being familiar is not a detriment to the growth of a believer, as much as one might expect.

That doesn't mean one should rely totally on some document, but I see no reason why a certain creed or confession statement cannot be used to show that a certain mode of thinking is not unusual or even weird.

 

[agedman]

P4T, I would like to explore using some sort of catechism for my daughter and any future children that the Lord might bless us with. What would you or anybody else recommend from a reformed Baptist position.

Also, don't know that this answers the OP, but while I haven't studied all the various historic creeds and confessions, I increasingly see the need in this day and age that a local church body have more consistency in what its members believe then what we often see today. While a place like BB is fine for bouncing around different takes on scripture, a local body cannot be efficient without some uniformity in belief. I imagine in my church you could walk into 5 different Sunday School classes, and even though the scripture lesson might be the same, you'd still get five different takes depending upon who is teaching (some more conservative some more liberal).

First, start with the Baptist Confession of faith (1689) which is foundational to many Baptist churches.

Second, the local assembly should have on record their own statements of faith and doctrine. MOST probably haven't seen them or even know were a copy is located.

I recall years ago, a church had occasion to go through these documents that had established them as an assembly more than a century before. It was amazing to watch how some had to actually struggle away from there own opinions or "the way we always did it," when confronted with these founding documents.

It is these documents is the local assembly agreement to gather and hold as accepted for fellowship. Without them, there is no authority for discipline, or membership.

 

[saturneptune]

A distinctive in many local Baptist churches in moderrn America is no creeds. Of all the ones I have read, personally, I like the Apostles Creed the best.

It seems pretty solid to me. Over time, I have softened my opposition to creeds. When I first switched from the Presbyterian Church to the Baptist Church 35 years ago, I was very much against creeds.

One point that TH made I agree with is that within the local church, there should be a document either in the form of bylaws, a Constitution, or a creed that states a common set of beliefs for members of that local church. There should be more unity than now exists within most local churches.

One use I am against confessions, creeds, and other church documents is using them as a requirement for church membership. The churches in Acts received members the same day. That does not mean six weeks or a few months from now after the new person is required to attend a "communicant's class" or memorize questions or documents before they are allowed to join. Common sense dictates that someone would have investigated the beliefs of a local church in depth before ever giving any thought of joining. This is a decision that many take too lightly and friviously. One should be in a church because God lead one there to serve, not because of friends and pastors.

Good thread.

 

[preacher4truth]

P4T, I would like to explore using some sort of catechism for my daughter and any future children that the Lord might bless us with. What would you or anybody else recommend from a reformed Baptist position.

Also, don't know that this answers the OP, but while I haven't studied all the various historic creeds and confessions, I increasingly see the need in this day and age that a local church body have more consistency in what its members believe then what we often see today. While a place like BB is fine for bouncing around different takes on scripture, a local body cannot be efficient without some uniformity in belief. I imagine in my church you could walk into 5 different Sunday School classes, and even though the scripture lesson might be the same, you'd still get five different takes depending upon who is teaching (some more conservative some more liberal).

TH,

I am not familiar with any creeds, CoF's or catechisms. I do believe the the Westminster CoF is popular among reformed Baptists.

 

[Inspector Javert]

What is wrong with using any of these?

Some here deem alluding to these means unequivocally that one is placing them authoritatively above Scripture and has denied sola scriptura.

Is such an accusation true?

Does speaking of or quoting a CoF (&c) conclude that the one doing so is using these as an authority above Scripture? Is this type of allegation short-sighted and false, or is it accurate and true?

Use of "C's" doesn't mean that someone is placing them above Scripture or denying S.S. I think the only knock is that the "C's" generate a presumptive foregone conclusion, which, when one subsequently refers to the text....then the text usually appears to support the conclusion the "C" has already suggested and it can interfere with allowing the text to simply speak for itself.

The Confession generates a lense through which one subsequently interprets the text. I have often thought that many passages or doctrines which I was taught were supported by the Scriptures used to defend them and would essentially eisegete an assumption INTO the text without realizing it. It is very hard to divorce oneself of pre-supposition and then allow the text to supply the conclusion FOR you, rather than assume the conclusion and merely look at text for reinforcement. I believe this happens all the time and is quite unintentional.

Once we have committed ourselves to a particular belief....practically EVERY passage seems in all genuineness to support it even if ultimately....it either does absolutely nothing of the sort (or even serves to disprove our assumptions). I doubt anyone here truly believes that those who use those tools truly "DENY" S.S. that would be an unfair accusation IMO.....I think they may be saying that with respect to our ultimate conclusions...a Confession or creed serves to "muddy the waters" such that we don't allow the text to speak for itself.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I see them as more of a teaching tool.

As for "muddying the waters", we certainly don't need a "C" to help us do that, do we?

 

[Yeshua1]

What is wrong with using any of these?

Some here deem alluding to these means unequivocally that one is placing them authoritatively above Scripture and has denied sola scriptura.

Is such an accusation true?

Does speaking of or quoting a CoF (&c) conclude that the one doing so is using these as an authority above Scripture? Is this type of allegation short-sighted and false, or is it accurate and true?

I am a Christian, who hapens to be a Baptist, so do not use the creeds/confessions in my daily studies, but see NO problem with those whodo!

main concern that I have is that at times those ascribing to them DO seem to use them almost same par as the Bible, as IF the doctrine is not found in the creeds/confessions, its not biblical!

Example, would be if one help to a view of eschatology that was diiferent than hel din thecreeds/confessions, there is nofialog to see what th bible states, as just assumes its only as they state!

 

[preacher4truth]

Use of "C's" doesn't mean that someone is placing them above Scripture or denying S.S. I think the only knock is that the "C's" generate a presumptive foregone conclusion, which, when one subsequently refers to the text....then the text usually appears to support the conclusion the "C" has already suggested and it can interfere with allowing the text to simply speak for itself.

The Confession generates a lense through which one subsequently interprets the text. I have often thought that many passages or doctrines which I was taught were supported by the Scriptures used to defend them and would essentially eisegete an assumption INTO the text without realizing it. It is very hard to divorce oneself of pre-supposition and then allow the text to supply the conclusion FOR you, rather than assume the conclusion and merely look at text for reinforcement. I believe this happens all the time and is quite unintentional.

Once we have committed ourselves to a particular belief....practically EVERY passage seems in all genuineness to support it even if ultimately....it either does absolutely nothing of the sort (or even serves to disprove our assumptions). I doubt anyone here truly believes that those who use those tools truly "DENY" S.S. that would be an unfair accusation IMO.....I think they may be saying that with respect to our ultimate conclusions...a Confession or creed serves to "muddy the waters" such that we don't allow the text to speak for itself.

Thanks for the response but doubt no more about the bolded statement.

 

[Mexdeaf]

P4T, I would like to explore using some sort of catechism for my daughter and any future children that the Lord might bless us with. What would you or anybody else recommend from a reformed Baptist position.

Here's one: http://www.vor.org/rbdisk/proveit.htm

I like it because it includes the Scriptures that support the teaching of each point.

 

[Thousand Hills]

TH,

I am not familiar with any creeds, CoF's or catechisms. I do believe the the Westminster CoF is popular among reformed Baptists.

Like I said I'm no expert, but from what I've gleaned the 1689 LBCF is more popular, as it has a different take on baptism then the WCF which biblical Presbyterians hold to.

Here is the New Hampshire Baptist COF from the 1800's, I'm not sure how it differs from the others.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/nh_conf.htm

I've also heard about the New City Catechism

http://www.newcitycatechism.com/home.php

 

[Thousand Hills]

Here's one: http://www.vor.org/rbdisk/proveit.htm

I like it because it includes the Scriptures that support the teaching of each point.

Thanks I will check that out.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Thanks for the response but doubt no more about the bolded statement.

No.....I do not doubt....and never have, that those who use "C's" in no way intentionally avoid or deny S.S.....

My statement is that "C's" can un-wittingly easily get in the way of it's perfect practice. Whether intentional or not.

 

[preacher4truth]

No.....I do not doubt....and never have, that those who use "C's" in no way intentionally avoid or deny S.S.....

My statement is that "C's" can un-wittingly easily get in the way of it's perfect practice. Whether intentional or not.

I agree with you. My statement meant that there are some that accuse those who use these tools as not being sola scriptura. This happens on BB.

These would also have to reject the usage of commentaries, books, devotionals, sermons, dictionaries &c and tag those who do with the same to remain consistent in their accusation.

Of course there are some that claim they are 'sola scriptura' by saying all they use is the Bible. There is none such in existence except in their own minds. I'd call said position hyper-sola scriptura! :thumbs:

 

[preacher4truth]

Like I said I'm no expert, but from what I've gleaned the 1689 LBCF is more popular, as it has a different take on baptism then the WCF which biblical Presbyterians hold to.

Here is the New Hampshire Baptist COF from the 1800's, I'm not sure how it differs from the others.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/nh_conf.htm

I've also heard about the New City Catechism

http://www.newcitycatechism.com/home.php

Thanks for the links TH.

At some point I will, Lord willing, take a gander at a CoF to see what I think of all that. Up to this point I've only had a slight interest in doing so.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Of course there are some that claim they are 'sola scriptura' by saying all they use is the Bible. There is none such in existence except in their own minds. I'd call said position hyper-sola scriptura! :thumbs:

You mean there are those who call themselves "Biblicists"..........No, I agree with you, no such being on Planet Earth actually exists. We all THINK we're "Biblicists", but we aren't. Everyone has a beginning point, and numerous assumptions they bring into any study. We are wired that way. God did it on purpose, nothing wrong with it.

As it stands....I do avoid "C's" for the reasons I stated before, but their use certainly does not mean that individual has intentionally left S.S. I think that those who use them....have their minds pre-disposed to a certain conclusion prior to even consulting Scripture. That's my beef.

 

[preacher4truth]

You mean there are those who call themselves "Biblicists"..........No, I agree with you, no such being on Planet Earth actually exists. We all THINK we're "Biblicists", but we aren't. Everyone has a beginning point, and numerous assumptions they bring into any study. We are wired that way. God did it on purpose, nothing wrong with it.

As it stands....I do avoid "C's" for the reasons I stated before, but their use certainly does not mean that individual has intentionally left S.S. I think that those who use them....have their minds pre-disposed to a certain conclusion prior to even consulting Scripture. That's my beef.

I can't say that those who use them fall within a broad brush conclusion as you've given, nor do I believe that such have their minds predisposed to a certain conclusion prior to consulting Scripture. I believe those who use these tools have already consulted Scripture and the tools enhance this and their understanding. I have no beef with them.

 

[12strings]

What is wrong with using any of these?

Some here deem alluding to these means unequivocally that one is placing them authoritatively above Scripture and has denied sola scriptura.

Is such an accusation true?

Does speaking of or quoting a CoF (&c) conclude that the one doing so is using these as an authority above Scripture? Is this type of allegation short-sighted and false, or is it accurate and true?

Simply referring to one cannot be grounds for placing it above scripture, just as refering to something spurgeon, Piper, or Clark wrote as and example of one who has thought and written about a certian issue.

UNLESS one is quoting it in such a way as to say, "look, what you say disagrees with Westminster, so it's automatically wrong." IN such a case, the person is putting their authority in the wrong place.

Catechism are helpful for teaching basics of truth, provided the one teaching agrees with what is in the catechism...Simply asking a child, "Who made you?" and having them reply, "God made me." does no damage to scriptures authority...in fact can help it greatly.

Creeds as used in a worship service, such as reciting the apostles creed, could also be helpful in limited use, provided that adequate instruction has been given, either within the service, or out of the service, that it is not on the same level as scripture.