The Authority of Scripture: Creedal vs. Sole Authority

[JonC]

As Baptists we share a rich and diverse history. The term “Baptist” itself is a distinctive rather than a denomination. But within this distinctive we have various camps of believers. Some are Reformed to the point they share a doctrinal closeness to the to the Church their precursors sought to rework. Others feel a kinship to the movements that rejected the Protestant movement as not going far enough towards a biblical understanding of our faith. Perhaps most find themselves between these extremes.

At one time Baptists touted Biblical Authority as their sole standard for belief and practice. With time some Baptists became creedal while others seemed adverse to any type of confession at all. Now most probably find themselves on the middle of this spectrum.

My question involves the authority of our faith, not so much as whether creeds and confessions are sufficient within an organization to summarize particular beliefs but whether such statements are adequate as a source to defend held views.

Can we hold Scriptural authority as our sole standard for belief and practice if we are unwilling to set aside our creeds, confessions, and statements of faith to defend or construct doctrine on God’s Word?

Is it wrong to build upon the ideas and interpretations of others rather than taking the effort (and time) to return to Scripture each occasion we engage others outside of our camp?

 

[TCassidy]

I don't know of anyone who accepts a creed or confession as a sole authority in matters of faith and practice.

What most of us do is agree with the conclusions based on the scriptures which the creeds and confessions articulate.

Let's look at the Anglican version:

I believe in God the Father Almighty, - Yep
Maker of heaven and earth: - Yep
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, - Yep
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, - Yep
Born of the Virgin Mary, - Yep
Suffered under Pontius Pilate, - Yep
Was crucified, dead, and buried: - Yep
He descended into hell; - Maybe
The third day he rose again from the dead; - Yep
He ascended into heaven, - Yep
And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; - Yep
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. - Yep
I believe in the Holy Ghost; - Yep
The holy Catholick Church; - Maybe
The Communion of Saints; - Yep
The Forgiveness of sins; - Yep
The Resurrection of the body, - Yep
And the Life everlasting. - Yep

 

[JonC]

I agree. But the distinction I am looking at is whether creeds and confessions are an authority for our faith.

Do we use them to summarize our belief or to teach our belief. When defending our faith do we go? To creeds and confessions? To the Bible? To both?

For example, if two argue about Jesus descending into Hell is it incumbent on the one arguing against the idea to prove the negative because the how the creed is worded? Or is to necessary to prove via Scripture that Jesus did descend into Hell? Is the creed an authority for doctrine or a statement of belief?

 

[Yeshua1]

As Baptists we share a rich and diverse history. The term “Baptist” itself is a distinctive rather than a denomination. But within this distinctive we have various camps of believers. Some are Reformed to the point they share a doctrinal closeness to the to the Church their precursors sought to rework. Others feel a kinship to the movements that rejected the Protestant movement as not going far enough towards a biblical understanding of our faith. Perhaps most find themselves between these extremes.

At one time Baptists touted Biblical Authority as their sole standard for belief and practice. With time some Baptists became creedal while others seemed adverse to any type of confession at all. Now most probably find themselves on the middle of this spectrum.

My question involves the authority of our faith, not so much as whether creeds and confessions are sufficient within an organization to summarize particular beliefs but whether such statements are adequate as a source to defend held views.

Can we hold Scriptural authority as our sole standard for belief and practice if we are unwilling to set aside our creeds, confessions, and statements of faith to defend or construct doctrine on God’s Word?

Is it wrong to build upon the ideas and interpretations of others rather than taking the effort (and time) to return to Scripture each occasion we engage others outside of our camp?

I don't know any Reformed Baptist, such as myself, who agrees with Rome on any of their major errors/mistakes, and at times heresy of doctrines though, and when we use Confessions, NEVER equal to the scripture, as the bible alone id inspired and infallible!

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree. But the distinction I am looking at is whether creeds and confessions are an authority for our faith.

Do we use them to summarize our belief or to teach our belief. When defending our faith do we go? To creeds and confessions? To the Bible? To both?

For example, if two argue about Jesus descending into Hell is it incumbent on the one arguing against the idea to prove the negative because the how the creed is worded? Or is to necessary to prove via Scripture that Jesus did descend into Hell? Is the creed an authority for doctrine or a statement of belief?

The Confession is a summary of major scriptural doctrines. but is not to be used in place of or considered equal to the Bible, as my 1689 Baptist Confession calls the Papacy the Antichrist, and I disagree with that!

 

[JonC]

I don't know any Reformed Baptist, such as myself, who agrees with Rome on any of their major errors/mistakes, and at times heresy of doctrines though, and when we use Confessions, NEVER equal to the scripture, as the bible alone id inspired and infallible!

No one thinks they agree on major mistakes, even Roman Catholics.

 

[rlvaughn]

Jon, I am having a hard time understanding the point of the thread. As with TCassidy, I don't know any Baptist who accepts a creed or confession as a sole authority in matters of faith and practice.

Is this rooted in some previous discussion?

Thanks.

 

[Yeshua1]

Jon, I am having a hard time understanding the point of the thread. As with TCassidy, I don't know any Baptist who accepts a creed or confession as a sole authority in matters of faith and practice.

Is this rooted in some previous discussion?

Thanks.

Could be the one about the Creed that states Jesus has 2 natures!

 

[Yeshua1]

No one thinks they agree on major mistakes, even Roman Catholics.

What do you think about the 1689 Baptist confession?

 

[JonC]

Jon, I am having a hard time understanding the point of the thread. As with TCassidy, I don't know any Baptist who accepts a creed or confession as a sole authority in matters of faith and practice.

Is this rooted in some previous discussion?

Thanks.

In a way, but not specifically.

On a previous discussion it was noted that some creeds were to be automatically implied in orthodox Christianity. Therefore in an argument the burden always falls to the one disagreeing with a creed rather than the other having to provide Scripture to prove a claim.

Until here I had never encountered this type of argument outside of the Catholic church (in that debate the Church was considered at least as much, if not more, an authority as Scripture). But in this case it was another Baptist making the argument.

Do you know of any Baptists who hold creeds in such a way?

 

[JonC]

What do you think about the 1689 Baptist confession?

I try not to.

Seriously, though, I am not a confessional kind of Baptist. I try not to address such broad things as a whole. For one, there is much ground covered. For another, interpretation varies.

I try to avoid confessions and stick to Scripture. I do see their usefulness in determining like-minded churches or believers. And maybe (but probably not) in teaching within a congregation.

 

[Jerome]

What do you think about the 1689 Baptist confession?

It's referred to as the LBC (London Baptist Confession) by Reformed Baptists:

ARBCA Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America

They declare that the LBC faithfully summarizes what Scripture teaches, and go from there. Example:

"It is always understood that Scripture must be the final authority over the conscience on this issue. However, the member churches of ARBCA have already confessed that the LBC is a faithful summary of what Scripture teaches....This is why this position paper deals more with the exposition and application of the LBC to this issue rather than a lengthy exegesis of Scripture. "

 

[rlvaughn]

In a way, but not specifically.

On a previous discussion it was noted that some creeds were to be automatically implied in orthodox Christianity. Therefore in an argument the burden always falls to the one disagreeing with a creed rather than the other having to provide Scripture to prove a claim.

Until here I had never encountered this type of argument outside of the Catholic church (in that debate the Church was considered at least as much, if not more, an authority as Scripture). But in this case it was another Baptist making the argument.

Do you know of any Baptists who hold creeds in such a way?

Not really. I can only think that such a discussion might be useful and profitable for two Baptists who had previously agreed to the same creed, confession, articles/statement of faith, and now one is disagreeing with his former position.

 

[JonC]

Not really. I can only think that such a discussion might be useful and profitable for two Baptists who had previously agreed to the same creed, confession, articles/statement of faith, and now one is disagreeing with his former position.

That's what I was thinking. I have been SBC all my life and don't know the details about other Baptists. I know many here hold to certain confessions, but wasn't sure how.

 

[InTheLight]

Jon, I am having a hard time understanding the point of the thread. As with TCassidy, I don't know any Baptist who accepts a creed or confession as a sole authority in matters of faith and practice.

Is this rooted in some previous discussion?

Thanks.

I think he's asking: How can we claim scripture as the sole authority of our faith if we continue to cling to creeds to defend our beliefs?

 

[Yeshua1]

In a way, but not specifically.

On a previous discussion it was noted that some creeds were to be automatically implied in orthodox Christianity. Therefore in an argument the burden always falls to the one disagreeing with a creed rather than the other having to provide Scripture to prove a claim.

Until here I had never encountered this type of argument outside of the Catholic church (in that debate the Church was considered at least as much, if not more, an authority as Scripture). But in this case it was another Baptist making the argument.

Do you know of any Baptists who hold creeds in such a way?

The Confessions just pull together various scriptures per each point of doctrine, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

I try not to.

Seriously, though, I am not a confessional kind of Baptist. I try not to address such broad things as a whole. For one, there is much ground covered. For another, interpretation varies.

I try to avoid confessions and stick to Scripture. I do see their usefulness in determining like-minded churches or believers. And maybe (but probably not) in teaching within a congregation.

The Confessions just give a summary of various scriptures used to support each major doctrine of the faith, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

I think he's asking: How can we claim scripture as the sole authority of our faith if we continue to cling to creeds to defend our beliefs?

We only use the Creeds and Confessions when they clearly line up and agreement with the inspired scriptures though!

 

[rlvaughn]

I think he's asking: How can we claim scripture as the sole authority of our faith if we continue to cling to creeds to defend our beliefs?

I don't recall having run across many Baptists who use creeds to defend their beliefs (of course, that doesn't mean others have not). I think a creed or confession might make a beginning point for discussion between two people who hold the same one. For example, two Baptists in the same association would (at least in theory) hold to the same beliefs/confession of faith. One might begin a discussion, saying, "I used to believe Article No. 7, but I don't anymore. Here's why." But it seems even they would eventually have to get to a Bible discussion.

On the other hand, for example, JonC said he is Southern Baptist and I am not. He may (or may not) hold the Baptist Faith and Message. Our church is not SBC and has its own confession of faith. I wouldn't see much benefit in debating our confessions of faith, since ultimately they stand or fall on what the Scriptures teach.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[JonC]

The Confessions just pull together various scriptures per each point of doctrine, correct?

a little more than that