The Authority of Scripture: Creedal vs. Sole Authority

[Martin Marprelate]

On the other thread I had challenged a view upon which you brought the creed to bear (as if the creed proved the view in question). That is the problem I see in our churches. When someone questions an interpretation some are quick to offer tradition, creeds, confessions , and the like but a bit slower to offer Scripture.

I challenge you to count the number of Scripture references in your posts and then to compare them to mine. You quite rarely quote Scripture; I constantly do. And the 1689 Confession offers Scripture proof texts for all its statements.

I firmly believe this is because these people cannot defend their belief through Scripture. Instead they hold to what was taught them, never understanding how those ideas really relate to Gods Word. This was what I saw with people I cared about regarding OSAS. Regardless as to the validity of the doctrine they remained truly ignorant when it came to supporting it biblically. This is a form of biblical illiteracy.

Well I firmly believe that it is either ignorance (either of the Confessions themselves or the purpose of them) or a misplaced pride that prevents people from accepting confessions of faith. The Scriptures say:
'The words of the wise are like goads, and the words of scholars are like well-driven nails, given by one Shepherd' (Ecclesiastes 12:11).

In my part of the world, one of the flag-ship Baptist Union churches in the UK has had eight out of 12 deacons resign because it has agreed, at a church meeting, to accept homosexuals into membership and leadership and (I understand) to accept same-sex 'marriage.' Large numbers of its members are seeking other church homes. But of course, it has no Statement of Faith. Its leaders would doubtless say, "We believe the Bible, but they have no commitment as to what they believe the Bible teaches. 1689 Confession 25:1. 'Marriage is to be between one man and one woman.' But no one in Mutley Baptist Church could stand up and point to the Confession and say, "This is what we are committed to!"

Spurgeon re-introduced the 1689 Confession to the Metropolitan Tabernacle in 1855. As a result the Met Tab remained evangelical when so many other Baptist churches were falling into liberalism. But of course, as @JonC tells us, Spurgeon couldn't defend his beliefs through Scripture, was ignorant when it came to supporting doctrine Biblically, and was, in fact Biblically illiterate.

My church belongs to the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (FIEC).
For those who might be interested, here is the FIEC Basis of Faith.
Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches
You will notice that at the bottom there are links to three binding 'Ethos Statements' covering Gospel Unity (i.e. separation), women in ministry (no women elders) and same-sex 'marriage.' There have been a few churches that have left the FIEC because of the ban on joining Churches Together or because they want to appoint a female Pastor. I'm not aware of any church that has left in order to celebrate same-sex 'marriage.' But the church leaders of each FIEC church have to declare their allegiance to the Basis of Faith and the Ethos Statements every year. I think that's great.

I think it's good that the FIEC has added these 'ethos statements' because none of these issues were considered when the FIEC was founded in 1922. This is one problem with the Reformation Confessions of Faith: they don't consider some of these modern issues.

 

[JonC]

Well I firmly believe that it is either ignorance (either of the Confessions themselves or the purpose of them) or a misplaced pride that prevents people from accepting confessions of faith. The Scriptures say:

'The words of the wise are like goads, and the words of scholars are like well-driven nails, given by one Shepherd' (Ecclesiastes 12:11).

Hey Martin.

I'd rather remain ignorantly abiding in Scripture than abiding ignorantly in creed. God revealed Himself through Scripture for a reason. It was not so that scholars can make it into easily digestible cliff notes for the masses. We are commanded to disciple people in God's Word (both in Christ and as students of Scripture) - not to "convert them" and give them a creed or confession.

The problem is one of authority, not the value of scholars. We both know that I have a deep appreciation for early writings. But I do not hold them in a position of authority. I believe we have a deep tradition of faith. But I do not hold my tradition to be an authority of that faith. The problem with elevating scholars to an almost godly status (in terms of authority) is that it is a self-elevation because the disciple of man ultimately chooses the man under which to prostrate himself.

We have to go back to Scripture.

I am not saying that creeds are worthless.

In fact, in our previous discussion I affirmed that I believe Jesus is no less God than God and no more man than man (IMHO, the point of "two natures" in the Chalcedonian Creed). But we both know that a very large number reject the creed (an issue that led to division not long after it was formulated). Since I believe your view is de facto Nestorianism it would do no good going to a creed because we interpret it differently. By going to Scripture we may hope to avoid at least some of the philosophical debates that went into that Counsel.

Like I said, I affirm the Chalcedonian Creed when I define "nature" as representing view (not the source of my view). I denied it by your application which I believe one heresy the Creed was trying to prevent.

Like I said, creeds and confessions (like you note with Spurgeon) can be good within a church or denomination.
Like I said, these creeds and confessions are good for guarding against heresy.
Like I said, these creeds and confessions are good to define held belief within a congregation or denomination.
Like I said, these creeds and confessions are good to define a common fellowship between congregations.
Like I said, these creeds and confessions are good to interact and remain relevant with culture.

Where we disagree (the only place left to disagree) is that I do not believe these creeds and confessions are an authority of our faith. We cannot use them as an authority when debating or arguing theology.

@The Archangel made the comment in #49 that Scripture is the final authority. That is where we disagree (he by the statement and you by this post). I believe Scripture alone sufficient as a source and authority for doctrine. It is our only authority.

You will not change my mind about this, Martin. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss other things.

In Christ,

John

 

[JonC]

No scriptural support? I wonder why?

Probably the same reason some here are so resistant. The odd thing is that this is the Baptist section of a Baptist board.

Folks here disagree on many things, and I'm pretty good at being disagreeable .

But I never thought we'd have people claiming elements of one's creed had to be disproved before they would consider seeking out God's Word in a matter of doctrine. I guess we can strike Scripture alone off of the Baptist distinctive list. It's no longer Scripture alone but Scripture as the "final authority" (which I think may mean the last resort).

 

[The Archangel]

Probably the same reason some here are so resistant. The odd thing is that this is the Baptist section of a Baptist board.

Folks here disagree on many things, and I'm pretty good at being disagreeable .

But I never thought we'd have people claiming elements of one's creed had to be disproved before they would consider seeking out God's Word in a matter of doctrine. I guess we can strike Scripture alone off of the Baptist distinctive list. It's no longer Scripture alone but Scripture as the "final authority" (which I think may mean the last resort).

You simply must stop misrepresenting my position.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JonC]

But of course, as @JonC tells us, Spurgeon couldn't defend his beliefs through Scripture, was ignorant when it came to supporting doctrine Biblically, and was, in fact Biblically illiterate.

Martin,

I just noticed this comment (I read over it too quickly before, sorry). I don't know if you misunderstood my comments, read too quickly (as I did this one at first), or are intentionally fabricating comments. I don't know you to be a liar, so I believe the post an unintentional error.

To clarify (to restate yet again) what I have been saying-

Creeds and confessions can be useful.

I am SBC and we have the Baptist F&M, which is regularly updated to address contemporary issues.

These things can help guard against heresy.
They can explain a held belief.

But I do not believe they are an authority for doctrine.

If Spurgeon introduced the confession in lieu of Scripture then you are correct - I believe this would be wrong.

That said, I do not believe this was true of Spurgeon. I cannot recall a sermon where he based teaching on a creed or confession. He typically went to Scripture.

Your post is not true to what I have stated.

 

[JonC]

You simply must stop misrepresenting my position.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

... you are arguing against a straw man. I clearly have already affirmed that 1.) Scripture is the final authority; 2.) Creeds are only correct insofaras they reflect Scripture, etc.

I said that you said Scripture is our final authority. I disagree with that statement.

Creeds and confessions may be (should be) based in Scripture but Scripture is the ONLY authority.

 

[The Archangel]

I said that you said Scripture is our final authority. I disagree with that statement.

Creeds and confessions may be (should be) based in Scripture but Scripture is the ONLY authority.

You are intentionally neglecting point #2 and being extremely obtuse in the process by suggesting that I think creeds in and of themselves are authoritative.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JonC]

You are intentionally neglecting point #2 and being extremely obtuse in the process.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You have misunderstood. I know you believe creeds and confessions are correct insofar as they affirm Scripture. But you also hold Scripture as the final authority.

If the creed or confession has to be disproved before one can go to Scripture then, I believe, that creed or confession is being held as an authority.

This gets even more serious when it is heavy on philosophy (like Chalcedon, for example). Since my belief is affirmed by that Creed (that Jesus is not less God than God or more man than man) and others see their view that Christ did things in these natures separately (calm the seas in his divine nature, suffered in his human nature) as affirmed in the creed we would never get past the philosophy if the creed itself is an authority.

I am not saying that you reject Scripture. I am saying that I think you would do better to go there instead of creeds or confessions when dealing with doctrine - not as a final authority but as the only authority.

 

[JonC]

You are intentionally neglecting point #2 and being extremely obtuse in the process by suggesting that I think creeds in and of themselves are authoritative.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No need to insult me. I am not misrepresenting your view but stating exactly what you present of your view here.

You suggest that you don't hold creeds in and of themselves as authority. I understand. I never claimed otherwise (no need to fabricate an argument). You affirm they need to be biblical.

My argument is that these creeds are not an authority at all.

Scripture is not the final authority. It is the only authority.

That is where we disagree.

No need to insult me just because we disagree. I have Presbyterian friends who hold the Westminster confession as an authority. And we get along even though they know I only accept Scripture in our conversations about doctrine.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

But of course, as @JonC tells us, Spurgeon couldn't defend his beliefs through Scripture, was ignorant when it came to supporting doctrine Biblically, and was, in fact Biblically illiterate.

While my question is not pertinent to this debate/discussion, could someone provide a source to document the statement concerning Spurgeon: "Spurgeon couldn't defend his beliefs through Scripture, was ignorant when it came to supporting doctrine Biblically, and was, in fact Biblically illiterate."?

 

[JonC]

While my question is not pertinent to this debate/discussion, could someone provide a source to document the statement concerning Spurgeon: "Spurgeon couldn't defend his beliefs through Scripture, was ignorant when it came to supporting doctrine Biblically, and was, in fact Biblically illiterate."?

@Martin Marprelate lifted my words from post# 59 which addressed people I know (and love) from a previous church regarding their inability to defend a doctrine they held (OSAS). For some reason he saw fit to give my words a new context (and meaning).

John

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If Spurgeon introduced the confession in lieu of Scripture then you are correct - I believe this would be wrong.

That said, I do not believe this was true of Spurgeon. I cannot recall a sermon where he based teaching on a creed or confession. He typically went to Scripture.

Your post is not true to what I have stated.

I think it is exactly true to what you stated. You wrote:

I firmly believe this is because these people cannot defend their belief through Scripture. Instead they hold to what was taught them, never understanding how those ideas really relate to Gods Word. This was what I saw with people I cared about regarding OSAS. Regardless as to the validity of the doctrine they remained truly ignorant when it came to supporting it biblically. This is a form of biblical illiteracy.

And I replied:

Spurgeon re-introduced the 1689 Confession to the Metropolitan Tabernacle in 1855. As a result the Met Tab remained evangelical when so many other Baptist churches were falling into liberalism. But of course, as @JonC tells us, Spurgeon couldn't defend his beliefs through Scripture, was ignorant when it came to supporting doctrine Biblically, and was, in fact Biblically illiterate.

Now that is irony, in case you were wondering. Your totally unjustified attack is upon me and @The Archangel Archangel, but by extension it is also against all who believe in creeds and confessions, including Keach, Spurgeon and a great body of Particular baptists.

FYI, Spurgeon wrote in his introduction to the 1689 Confession when he re-introduced it:
'This ancient document is a most excellent epitome of the things most surely believed among us.
It is not issued as an authoritative code, or rule of faith, whereby ye are to be fettered, but as assistance to you in controversy, a confirmation in faith, and a means of edification in righteousness. Here the younger members of our church will have a body of divinity in small compass, and by means of the scriptural proofs, will be ready to give a reason for the hope that is in them.
Be not ashamed of your faith; remember it is the ancient Gospel of martyrs, confessors, reformers and saints. Above all, it is the Truth of God against which the gates of hell cannot prevail.
Let your lives adorn your faith, let your example recommend your creed. Above all, live in Christ Jesus and walk in Him, giving credence to no teaching but that which is manifestly approved of Him and owned by the Holy Spirit. Cleave fast to the word of God, which is here mapped out for you.'

Looking around the board I often see confessions used where I would have expected to see Scripture. With the other thread the member I was arguing against never budged from the creed (he said Scripture affirmed the creed but he also said that he was "unwilling" to go to Scripture). I was amazed (not in a good way) because we were both Baptist.

Yet you must know that this is a gross and shameful misinterpretation of what @The Archangel was arguing. He was actually asking you to prove your position from Scripture which you resolutely refused to do.

As I said early on, it just surprised me that some are unwilling to explore a position through Scripture.

Now let's get real here. In the thread 'The Two natures of Christ,' I started by quoting the 1689 Confession. The reason for that was that you had declared that the Chalcedonian Creed was a Roman Catholic document. I showed that it has been the basis for all orthodox Protestant Creeds. But in the extract I posted there were no fewer than 18 Scripture references. In subsequent posts on that thread I quoted or referenced the Bible 14 times. YOU HAVE NEVER QUOTED OR REFERENCED THE BIBLE ONCE ON THAT THREAD. How do you have the brass neck to accuse others of relying on creeds and not 'exploring a position through Scripture' when you absolutely refuse to back up your positions from the Bible?

Then you have the gall to write to @The Archangel:

Since I believe your view is de facto Nestorianism it would do no good going to a creed because we interpret it differently. By going to Scripture we may hope to avoid at least some of the philosophical debates that went into that Counsel.

Well ignoring the terminological inexactitude that Calcedon is de facto Nestorianism, which you know perfectly well is false, where is this Scripture???? Why are you not setting us an example by demonstrating that your cocktail of monophysitism, Eutychianism and Sabellianism is somehow according to the word of God?

 

[JonC]

I think it is exactly true to what you stated. You wrote:

And I replied:

Now that is irony, in case you were wondering. Your totally unjustified attack is upon me and @The Archangel Archangel, but by extension it is also against all who believe in creeds and confessions, including Keach, Spurgeon and a great body of Particular baptists.

FYI, Spurgeon wrote in his introduction to the 1689 Confession when he re-introduced it:
'This ancient document is a most excellent epitome of the things most surely believed among us.
It is not issued as an authoritative code, or rule of faith, whereby ye are to be fettered, but as assistance to you in controversy, a confirmation in faith, and a means of edification in righteousness. Here the younger members of our church will have a body of divinity in small compass, and by means of the scriptural proofs, will be ready to give a reason for the hope that is in them.
Be not ashamed of your faith; remember it is the ancient Gospel of martyrs, confessors, reformers and saints. Above all, it is the Truth of God against which the gates of hell cannot prevail.
Let your lives adorn your faith, let your example recommend your creed. Above all, live in Christ Jesus and walk in Him, giving credence to no teaching but that which is manifestly approved of Him and owned by the Holy Spirit. Cleave fast to the word of God, which is here mapped out for you.'


Yet you must know that this is a gross and shameful misinterpretation of what @The Archangel was arguing. He was actually asking you to prove your position from Scripture which you resolutely refused to do.

Now let's get real here. In the thread 'The Two natures of Christ,' I started by quoting the 1689 Confession. The reason for that was that you had declared that the Chalcedonian Creed was a Roman Catholic document. I showed that it has been the basis for all orthodox Protestant Creeds. But in the extract I posted there were no fewer than 18 Scripture references. In subsequent posts on that thread I quoted or referenced the Bible 14 times. YOU HAVE NEVER QUOTED OR REFERENCED THE BIBLE ONCE ON THAT THREAD. How do you have the brass neck to accuse others of relying on creeds and not 'exploring a position through Scripture' when you absolutely refuse to back up your positions from the Bible?

Then you have the gall to write to write to @The Archangel:

Well ignoring the terminological inexactitude that Calcedon is de facto Nestorianism, which you know perfectly well is false, where is this Scripture???? Why are you not setting us an example by demonstrating that your cocktail of monophysitism, Eutychianism and Sabellianism is somehow according to the word of God?

Martin,

Both you and @The Archangel are misunderstanding my posts here.

This is not an “attack” on anyone.

I do object to you taking my comments about my own experience (to include my acceptance of OSAS at the time) and lifting it from my own context to create a strawman for you to beat to death. But I can overlook this. I'm not attacking you for the incident.

The issue is not the Calcedon creed. I don’t have a problem with the creed (I affirm it as guarding against heresy and explaining that Jesus is no less God than God, no more man than man…i.e., what I believe they to have meant by “two natures” not mixed and inseparable). On another site my objection was your Calcedon creed (that Jesus acted in these natures separately as evidenced by calming the storm and human experiences). I just do not define my belief in Jesus nature by that creed (I think it best to go to Scripture).

I affirmed that creeds and confessions are useful.

I affirmed that they are good for teaching within a denomination or church.

I affirmed they are good for guarding against heresy.

I affirmed they are good as expressions of held belief.

I affirmed they are beneficial in measuring the bounds of cooperation and fellowship.


BUT I do not believe they are appropriate as a source or authority for doctrine or to defend one’s belief. I believe that we have to go to Scripture and Scripture alone.

That is where we differ. Not that I reject all creeds and confessions (obviously I don’t, since I’ve affirmed two that I hold as descriptive of my faith). But that I reject the idea they are an authority. That is not saying they are not biblically based.

The Baptist F&M is descriptive of my belief. But if we were to debate the doctrine of eternal security I believe we go to the Bible instead of the Baptist F&M. It is not because I believe the F&M wrong, or unbiblical. I believe it is correct and biblically based. But the Baptist F&M is not an authority for me even though I find it biblical. Scripture is the only authority.

You can continue to insult me and misrepresent my words in your jihad against my view regarding the nature of Creeds, Confessions, and Scripture - or you can accept that you and I disagree on these things and continue in a Christ-like manner.

 

[InTheLight]

Have you ever noticed that it's the Calvinists that cling to creeds? Use them to defend their theology as if they were inspired? There's even a Calvinist on this board named 1689Dave !

 

[JonC]

Have you ever noticed that it's the Calvinists that cling to creeds? Use them to defend their theology as if they were inspired? There's even a Calvinist on this board named 1689Dave !

Have you ever noticed many of them attack anyone not agreeing with them as if Calvinists were the guardians of orthodoxy and everyone else that one apple that could spoil the whole bunch?

Even on what should have been a fairly simple and plain thread as this one.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

BUT I do not believe they are appropriate as a source or authority for doctrine or to defend one’s belief. I believe that we have to go to Scripture and Scripture alone.

So you support the 1689 Baptist Confession then. 'The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge and obedience'
Baptist 1689 Confession 1:1.

But if you have such an aching desire to defend your belief by Scripture alone, why do you not do so? No references to Scripture by you in the four pages of this thread either.

As for misrepresentation, the thread is open for everyone to read. Let them make up their own minds.

 

[JonC]

So you support the 1689 Baptist Confession then. 'The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge and obedience'
Baptist 1689 Confession 1:1.

But if you have such an aching desire to defend your belief by Scripture alone, why do you not do so? No references to Scripture by you in the four pages of this thread either.

As for misrepresentation, the thread is open for everyone to read. Let them make up their own minds.

I do not support any confession. Some do represent my beliefs.

I actually thought the verse obvious (I did not know there were any here who questioned that Scripture was an authority for our faith). My apologies for the assumption.

2 Timothy 3:15-17
15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Have you ever noticed that it's the Calvinists that cling to creeds? Use them to defend their theology as if they were inspired? There's even a Calvinist on this board named 1689Dave !

No.I never have. If you can show where I have ever used a creed or confession to defend my theology without also using Scripture, let's see it.
But I shall absolutely continue to quote confessions where I think it appropriate, and if you don't like it, you don't have to read it.

 

[InTheLight]

No.I never have. If you can show where I have ever used a creed or confession to defend my theology without also using Scripture, let's see it.
But I shall absolutely continue to quote confessions where I think it appropriate, and if you don't like it, you don't have to read it.

I said "Calvinists" and I named one person. I said nothing about you, in particular. You can quote confessions until the sun explodes, doesn't mean they have the same weight in doctrine as scripture.

 

[InTheLight]

Have you ever noticed many of them attack anyone not agreeing with them as if Calvinists were the guardians of orthodoxy and everyone else that one apple that could spoil the whole bunch?

I might have noticed that a three hundred twenty-nine times, or thereabouts.

Even on what should have been a fairly simple and plain thread as this one.

Yes, your premise was fairly simple and straightforward.