"GOOD NEWS"¹ WILL DEFEND OUR PRESIDENT’S STATEMENT

Volume 16
January 31, 1984
Number 1

The following statement appeared in the Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, "BAPTISTS BALK AT FORMAL CREED". The
article quoted Dr. Jimmy Draper, Jr. "No matter what they say, Baptists have got a creed - everyone's got a creed. We do believe in something. We have a statement of faith and a confession of faith..."

The January issue of SBC TODAY had the following front page headline in large print: "DRAPER STIRS CREEDAL STORM". Did our president stir deep enough?

Another heading in SBC TODAY is "Creeping Creedalism Surges Under Draper".

The GOOD NEWS is going to postpone the studies on the TEN COMMANDMENTS for a few months in order to address the subject of Creeds and Confessions.

CREED   -   CONFESSIONS   -    ARTICLES OF FAITH

Ernest C. Reisinger

(Part I)

WEBSTER'S DEFINITION:

CREED: "I believe, at the beginning. of the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds."

(2) Eccl. "Any formula or confession of religious faith."

CONFESSION. (4) Eccl. (b) "A formal statement of doctrinal belief ordinarily intended for public avowal, as by an individual, a congregation, a synod, or a church; a creed, catechism, etc: also called a confession of faith."

(c) "A church or body of Christians having a particular confession of faith; a communion."

In the following studies I will not waste any effort to technically make any distinction between Creed, Confession, or Articles of Faith. In terms of strict definition there is no difference. Some would favor the word confession in lieu of the word creed because they feel that creeds tend to be static and often not relevant to contemporary issues. Some may argue that creeds are more authoritative and have more legalistic and rigid application. There may be some argument for these rather technical differences; however, if we take Webster's definitions we will not go too far wrong. I will be staying within the frame work of Webster's definitions.

By a Creed, or Confession of Faith, I mean an exhibition in human language of those great doctrines which are believed by the framers of it to be taught in the Holy Scriptures; and which are drawn out in regular order, for the purpose of ascertaining how far those who wish to unite in church fellowship are really agreed in the fundamental principles of Christianity.

Since Creed simply means, "I believe," to say Baptists are not creedal people is to say we do not believe anything.

If we refuse some one membership into the local church because they will not, submit to believer's baptism it is because we believe some specific thing about baptism - this is creedal.

As Baptists we believe in certain things that the Bible clearly teaches, such as, God is love - this is creedal; God is holy - this is creedal; we believe in a triune God - this is creedal.

A Creed may be very short. Peter was creedal when he answered our Lord's question, "...but whom do you say that I am?"  "Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God." This was a creedal statement. He expressed what he believed in that confession.

The Bible is full of mini-creeds. For example: Rom. 10:9; I Cor. 12:3; Phil. 2:11 - all confess that Jesus is Lord. This is creedal by the very definition of the word.

The consideration is not how short, or how long a confession or creed may be, but, - Are Baptists, or Christians for that matter, creedal people? Cannot every true Baptist say? ........

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord.

I believe Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost and was born of the virgin Mary.

I believe that Jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate. I believe Jesus Christ was crucified on the cross. I believe Jesus Christ was dead and buried.

I believe Jesus Christ rose again from the dead.

I believe Jesus Christ ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God the Father Almighty.

I believe Jesus Christ shall come again to judge the quick and the dead.

Is there a true Baptist that is not willing to say, I believe these truths because they are clearly taught in the Bible? Well, if you can say, "I believe these statements," then you are creedal unless words and definitions mean nothing.

It may sound very pious to say that Baptists have not been creedal people, and that the Bible is the only creed needed. Most religious crack-pots and many cults would make the same claim.

All the cults center around a man who has his own interpretation of the Bible. Walter Martin, a Southern Baptist who teaches at Simon Greenleaf School of Law, and is an authority on cults, defined a cult as, "a religion centered around a man who has his own interpretation of the Bible." It should not, therefore, seem strange that usually it is latitudinarians and heretics that object to the historic Creeds and Confessions. Therefore, some man, or group of men, must say what the Bible means and how it applies to faith and practice. That is what the preacher does when he teaches and preaches.

A Creed or Confession of Faith is not the voice of Divine truth, but the echo of that voice from men who have heard the utterance of Divine truth, men that have felt the power of Divine truth, and have answered the call of Divine truth.

Creeds and Confessions, therefore, have been found necessary in all ages and branches of the Church, and, when not abused, have been useful for the following purposes:

1. To mark, disseminate, and preserve the attainments made in the knowledge of Christian truth by any branch of the Church in any crisis of its development.

2. To discriminate the truth from the glosses of false teachers, and to present it in its integrity and due proportions.

3. To act as the basis of ecclesiastical fellowship among those so nearly agreed as to be able to labour together in harmony.

4. To be used as instruments in the great work of popular instruction.

It must be remembered, however, that the matter of these Creeds and Confessions binds the consciences of men only so far as it is purely Scriptural, and because it is so; and as to the form in which that matter is stated, they bind those only who have voluntarily subscribed to the Confession, and because of that subscription.

Every thinking man has a creed about politics, religion, and the best manner of conducting the business with which he is most familiar. It may not be printed, it may not be communicated in words except in special cases, but it surely exists in all intelligent minds. And if the reader can remember a denomination without an avowed Confession of Faith, he will find that in that community there is an understood creed just as real, and as well known by those familiar with its people and its teachings, as if every one of its members carried a printed copy of it in his hand.

BAPTISTS HAVE ALWAYS GLORIED THAT THE BIBLE WAS
THEIR CREED, AND AT THE SAME TIME FOR CENTURIES
THEY HAVE HAD PUBLISHED CONFESSIONS OF FAITH.

AWAY WITH CREEDS......THIS IS THE CRY OF THE DAY!

The "prince of preachers", and that great soul winner, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, gives us some wise advice that is very relevant to our consideration of Creeds and Confessions.

"The arch-enemy of truth has invited us to level our walls and take away our fenced cities. He has cajoled some true-hearted but weak-headed believers to advocate this crafy policy; and, from the best of motives, some foolish brethren are almost prepared to execute the cunning design. 'Away with the creeds and bodies of divinity!, This is the cry of the day. Ostensibly, it is reverence for the Bible and attachment to charity,which dictates the clamorous denunciation; but at the bottom it is hatred of definite truth, and especially of the doctrines of grace, which has suggested the absurd outcry. As Philip of Macedon hated the Grecian orators because they were the watch-dogs of the flock, so there are wolves who desire the destruction of our doctrinal formularies, that they may make havoc of the souls of men by their pestilent heresies ... Were there no other argument in favor of articles and creeds, the detestation of Neologians might go far to establish them in Christian estimation. Weapons which are offensive to our enemies should never be allowed to rust ... The pretense that articles of faith fetter the mind, is annihilated by the fact that the boldest thinkers are to.be found among men who are not foolhardy to forsake the old landmarks. He who finds his creed a fetter has none at all, for to the true believer a plain statement of his faith is no more a chain than a sword-belt to the soldier, or a girdle to the pilgrim. If. there were any fear that Scripture would be displaced by handbooks of theology, we should be the first to denounce them; but there is not the shadow of a reason for such a dream, since the most Bible-reading of all nations is that in which the Assembly's (Westminster) Catechism is learned by almost every mother's son. ("Spurgeon's Prefatory Recommendation" to Stock's "Handbook of Theology", pp. 7, 8, 9. London, 1862) Quoted in Cathcart's Baptist Encyclopedia, pg. 294.

The very etymology of the word "creed" prohibits Baptists from saying "no creed" - period! The very etymology of the word "creed" should end any debate as to whether or not Baptist are creedal and confessional.

The Baptist Confession of 1644 and 1689 was later adopted by the Philadelphia Association with just a few changes. Southern Baptists have their roots in the Philadelphia Association. What is the Baptist FAITH AND MESSAGE but a creedal statement, a confession as to what we are meant to believe.

For these studies I am going to use material from an address given to candidates for the ministry by one of the most learned and able men who ever taught Ecclesiastical History and Church Government. He pastored for twenty years and then taught for thirty seven years in the Seminary that was then the stronghold of evangelical Christianity in the world. The name of the lecture was, "The Utility and Importance of Creeds and Confessions." I am not going to give his name, or the name of the Seminary, until the last study.

Creeds and Confessions do not claim to be in themselves laws of Christ's house, or legislative enactments, by which, any set of opinions are constituted truths, and which require, on that account, to be received as truths among the members of his family. They only profess to be summaries, extracted from the Scriptures, of a few of those great gospel doctrines, which are taught by Christ himself; and those who make the summary in each particular case, concur in deeming important, and agree to make the test of their religious union. They have no idea that, in forming this summary, they make any thing truth, that was not truth before; or that they thereby contract an obligation to believe, what they were not bound by the authority of Christ to believe before.  But they simply consider it as a list of the leading truths which the Bible teaches, which, of course, all men ought to believe, because the Bible does teach them; and which a certain portion of the visible church catholic agree in considering as a formula, by means of which they may know and understand one another.

Now, I affirm, that the adoption of such a Creed is not only lawful, and expedient, but also indispensably necessary to the harmony and purity of the visible Church. For the establishment of this position, let me request your attention to the following considerations.

1. Without a Creed explicitly adopted, it is not easy to see how the ministers and members of any particular church, and more especially a large denomination of Christians, can maintain unity among themselves. If every Christian were a mere insulated individual, who inquired, felt, and acted for himself alone, no creed of human formation would be necessary for his advancement in knowledge, comfort, or holiness. With the Bible in his closet, and with his eyes opened to see the "wondrous things" which it contains, he would have all that was needful for his edification. But the case is far otherwise. The church is a society; a society which, however extended, is "one body in Christ," and all who compose it, "members one of another." Nor is this society merely required to be one in name, or to recognize a mere theoretical union; but Also carefully to maintain "the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." They are exhorted to "Stand fast in one spirit, with one mind." They are commanded all to "speak the same thing," and to be "of one accord, of one mind." And this "unity of spirit" is as essential to the comfort and edification of those who are joined together in church fellowship, as it is to a compliance with the command of their Master. "How can two walk together unless they be agreed?" Can a body of worshippers, composed of Calvinists, Arminians, Pelagians, Arians, and Socinians, all pray, and preach, and commune together profitably and comfortably, each retaining the sentiments, feelings, and language appropriate to his denomination? This would indeed make the house of God a miserable Babel. What! can those who believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be God, equal with the Father, and worship him accordingly; and those who consider all such worship as abominable idolatry:--those who cordially renounce all dependence on their own works or merit for justification before God, relying entirely on his rich grace, "through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:" and those who pronounce all such reliance fanatical, -and man's own righteousness the sole ground of hope:--can persons who cherish these irreconcilably opposite sentiments and feelings on the most important of all subjects, unite with edification in the same prayers, listen from Sabbath to Sabbath to the same.instructions, and sit together in comfort at the same sacramental table? As well might Jews and Christians worship together in the same temple. They must either be perfectly indifferent to the great subjects on which they are thus divided, or all their intercourse must be productive of jarring and distress. Such a discordant assembly might talk about church fellowship; but that they should really enjoy that fellowship which the Bible describes as so precious, and which the pious so much delight to cultivate, is impossible; just as impossible as "that righteousness should have fellowship with unrighteousness," or "light hold communion with darkness, or Christ maintain concord with Belial."

Holding these things to be self-evident, how, I ask, is any church to guard itself from that baleful discord, that perpetual strife of feeling, if. not.of words and conduct, which must ensue, when it is made up of such heterogeneous materials? Nay, how is a church to avoid the guilt of harbouring in its bosom, and of countenancing by its fellowship, the worst heresies that ever disgraced the Christian name? It is not enough for attaining this object, that all who are admitted profess to agree in receiving the Bible, for many who call themselves Christians, and profess to take the Bible for their guide, hold opinions, and speak a language as foreign, nay, as opposite, to the opinions and language of many others,who equally claim to be Christians, and equally profess to receive the Bible, as the east is to the west.  Of those who agree in this general profession, the greater part acknowledge as of divine authority the whole sacred canon, as we receive it; while others would throw out whole chapters, and some a number of entire books frcm the volume of God's revealed will. The orthodox maintain the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures; while some who insist that they are Christians, deny their inspiration altogether. In short, there are multitudes who, professing to believe the Bible, and to take it for their guide, reject every fundamental doctrine which it contains. So it was in the beginning as well as now. An inspired Apostle declares, that some in his day, who not only professed to believe the Scriptures, but even to "preach Christ," did really preach "another Gospel," the teachers of which he charges those to whom he wrote to hold "accursed;" and he assures them that there are some "heresies so deep and radical that they are to be accounted "damnable." Surely those who maintain the true Gospel, cannot "walk together" in lichurch fellowship" with those who are "accursed' for preaching "another Gospel," and who espouse "damnable heresies," the advocates of which the disciples of Christ are not permitted even to "receive into their houses," or to "bid God speed!" How, then, I ask again, are the members of a Church, to take care that they be, according to, the divine command, "of one mind," and "of one way?" They may require all who enter their assembly to profess a belief in the Bible; nay, they may require this profession to be repeated every day, and yet may be corrupted and divided by every form of the grossest error. Such a profession, it is manifest, ascertains no agreement, is a bond of no real union; a pledge of no spiritual fellowship.  It leaves every thing within the range of nominal Christianity, as perfectly undefined, and as much exposed to total discord as before.

But perhaps it will be proposed as a more efficient remedy, that there be a private understanding, vigilantly acted upon, that no ministers or members be admitted, but those who are known, by private conversation with them, substantially to agree with the original body, with regard both to doctrine and order. in this way, some allege, discord may be banished, and a church kept pure and peaceful, without an odious array of Creeds and Confessions. To this proposal, I answer, in the first place, it is, to all intents and purposes, exhibiting a Creed, and requiring subscription to it, while the contrary is insinuated and professed. It is making use of a religious test, in the most rigorous manner, without having the honesty or the manliness to avow it. For what matter is it, as to the real spirit of the proceeding, whether the Creed be reduced to writing, or be registered only in the minds of the church members, and applied by them as a body, if it equally exclude applicants who are not approved! But to this proposed remedy, I answer, in the second place, the question, what is soundness in the faith? however explicitly agreed upon by the members of the church among themselves, cannot be safely left to the understanding and recollection of each individual belonging to the body in question.

No church can hope to maintain a homogeneous character;--no church can be secure either of purity or peace, for a single year; nay, no church can effectually guard against the highest degrees of corruption and strife, without some test of truth, explicitly agreed upon, and adopted by her, in her ecclesiastical capacity; something recorded; something publicly known; something capable of being referred to when most needed; which not merely this or that private member supposes to have been received;, but to which the church as such has agreed to adhere, as a bond of union in other words, a church, in order to maintain "the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace and love," must have a Creed--a written Creed--to which she has formally given her assent, and to a conformity to which her ministrations are pledged. As long as such a test is faithfully applied, she cannot fail of being in -some good degree united and harmonious; and when nothing of the kind is employed, I see not how she can be expected, without a miracle, to escape all the evils of discord and corruption.

2. The necessity and importance of Creeds and Confessions appear from the consideration, that one great design of establishing a Church in our world was, that she might be in all ages, a depository, a guardian, and a witness of the truth.

Christians, collectively as well as individually, are represented in Scripture as witnesses for God. They are commanded to maintain his truth, and to "hold forth the word of life," in all its purity and lustre before a perverse generation, that others may be enlightened and converted. They are exhorted to "buy the truth, and not to sell it;"--to "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints; "--to "hold fast the form of sound words which they have received; "--and to "strive together for the faith of the Gospel." These, and many other commands, of similar import, plainly make it the duty-of-every Christian church to, detect and expose prevailing heresies; to exclude all such as embrace radical heresy from their assembly; and to "lift up a standard" for truth, whenever "the enemy comes in like a flood."

But does not all this imply taking effectual measures to distinguish between truth and error? Does not all this necessarily infer the duty of drawing, and publicly manifesting, a line between those who, while they profess, in general, to believe the Bible, really deny all its essential doctrines; and those who simply and humbly receive "the truth as it is in Jesus?" But how is this distinction to be made, seeing those who embrace the essential doctrines of the Gospel, equally profess to receive the Bible?  It can only be done by carefully ascertaining and explicitly declaring how the church herself, and how those whom she suspects of being in error, understand and interpret the Bible; that is, by extracting certain articles of faith from the Scriptures, according to her understanding of them, and ccmparing these articles with the professed belief of those whom she supposes to be heretics. And what is this but extracting from the Scriptures a Confession of Faith--a creed, and applying it as a test of sound principles? It does not really appear to me that those orthodox brethren, who admit that the church is bound to raise her voice against error, and to "contend earnestly" for the truth and yet denounce Creeds and Confessions, are, in the highest degree, inconsistent with themselves.

They acknowledge the obligation and importance of a great duty; and yet reject the only means by which it can be performed. Quite as unreasonable, as the "task masters of Egypt," they require work to be done, without allowing the materials necessary to its accomplishment. Before the church, as such, can detect heretics and cast them out from her bosom; before she can raise her voice, in "a day of rebuke and of blasphemy," against prevailing errors, her governors and members must be agreed what is truth; and, unless they would give themselves up, in their official judgments, to all the caprice and feverish effervescence of occasional feeling, they must have sane accredited, permanent document, exhibiting what they have agreed to consider as truth. There is really no feasible alternative. They must either have such "a form of sound words," which they have voluntarily adopted, and pledged themselves to one another to "hold fast;" or they can have no security that any two or more successive decisions concerning soundness in the faith will be alike. In other words, they cannot attain, in any thing like a steady, uniform, consistent manner, one of the great purposes for which the visible church was established.

It surely will not be said, by any considerate person, that the church, or any of her individual members, can sufficiently fulfill the duty in question, by simply proclaiming from time to time, in the midst of surrounding error, her adherence and her attachment to the Bible. Every one must see that this would be, in fact, doing nothing as "witnesses of the truth;" because it would be doing nothing peculiar; nothing distinguishing; nothing which every heretic in Christendom is not ready to do, or rather is not daily doing, as loudly, and as frequently as the most orthodox church. The very idea of "bearing testimony to the truth," and of separating from those who are so corrupt that Christian camunion cannot be maintained with them, necessarily implies some public discriminating act, in which the church agrees upon, and expresses her belief in, the great doctrines of Christianity, in contradistinction from those who believe erroneously.  Now to suppose that any thing of this kind can be accomplished, by making a profession, the very same, in every respect, with that which the worst heretics make, is too palpably absurd to satisfy any sober inquirer.

Of what value, let me ask, had the Waldenses and Albigenses been, as witnesses of the truth--as lights in the world, amidst the darkness of surrounding corruption;--especially of what value had they been to the church in succeeding times, and to us at the present day, if they had not formed, and transmitted to posterity those celebrated Confessions of Faith, as precious as they are memorable, which we read in their history, and,which stands as so many monumental testimonies to the true "Gospel of the grace of God?"  Without these, how should we ever have known in what manner they interpreted the Bible; or wherein they differed from the grossest heretics, who lived at the same time, and professed to receive the same Bible? Without these, how should we ever have seen so clearly and satisfactorily as we do, that they maintained the truth and the order of Christ's house, amidst all the wasting desolations of the "man of sin;" and thus fulfilled his promise, that there shall always be "a seed to serve him, who shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation?"

3. The adoption and publication of a Creed, is a tribute to truth and candour, which every Christian church owes -to the other churches, and to the world'around her.

Every wise man will wish to be united religious duty and privilege with those who most nearly agree with himself in their views of doctrine and order; with those in intercourse with whcm he can be most happy and best edified. Of course he will be desirous before he joins any church to know something of its faith, government, and general character. Let us suppose that a pious and ingenuous individual about to form his religious connections looks round on the churches to which he has most access and is desirous of deciding with which of them he can be most comfortable. Let us suppose that in this survey be turns his eyes towards the truly scriptural and primitive church to which it is our happiness to belong. He is anxious to know the doctrine as well as the order which he may expect to find in connection with our body. How is he to know this? Certainly not by going from church to church throughout our whole bounds and learning the creed of every indivudual minister from his own lips. This would be physically impossible without bestowing on the task a degree of time and toil, which scarcely any man could afford. He could not actually hear for himself the doctrines taught in a twentieth part of our pulpits. And if he could he would still be unable to decide from this source alone how far what he heard might be regarded as the uniform and universal, and especially as the permanent character of the church; and not rather as an accidental exhibition. But when such an inquirer finds that we have a published creed declaring how we understand the Scriptures, and explicitly stating in detail the great truths which we have agreed to unite in maintaining; he can ascertain in a few hours and without leaving his own dwelling what we profess to believe and to practice and how far he may hope to be at home in our assembly. And while he is enabled thus to understand the system to which we profess to adhere, he enables us to understand his views by ascertaining how far they accord with our published creed.

Further, what is thus due to ingenuous individuals who wish to know the real character of our church, is also due to neighboring churches who may have no less desire to ascertain the principles which we embrace. it is delightful for ecclesiastical communities, who approach near to each other in faith and order, to manifest their affection for one another by cherishing some degree of Christian intercourse.

But what church, which valued the preservation of its own purity and peace, would venture on such intercourse with a body which had no def ined system, either of doctrine or government to which it stood pledged; and which might theref ore prove a source of pollution and disorder to every other church with which it had the smallest interchange of services?  One of the ministers of such a denomination, when invited into the pulpit of an orthodox brother, might give entire satisfaction, while the very next to whom a similar mark of Christian affection, and confidence was shown, might preach the most corrupt heresy. Creeds and Confessions then, so far from having a tendency to "alienate" and "embitter" those Christian denominations which think nearly alike, and ought to maintain fraternal intercourse, really tend to make them acquainted with each other; to lay a foundation for regular and cordial intercourse; to beget mutual confidence; and thus to promote the harmony of the church of God.

Therefore to affirm that as every individual minister owes to all around him a frank avowal of his Christian faith when any desire to know it; so every church owes it to her sister churches to be equally frank and explicit in publicly declaring her principles. She no doubt believes those principles to be purely scriptural. In publicly avowing them, she performs the double duty of bearing testimony to the truth and of endeavoring to draw from less pure denominations and from the surrounding world new support to what she conscientiously believes to be more correct sentiments than theirs. She may be erroneous in this estimate; but still she does what she can and what she unfeignedly believes to be right; and what of course, as long as this conviction continues, she is bound to perform.  In all ages, those Christian churches which have been most honorably distinguished for their piety, their zeal, and their adherence to the simplicity of the gospel, have been not only most remarkable for their care in forming, but also for their frankness in avowing their doctrinal creed; and their disposition to let all around them distinctly understand what they professed to regard as the fundamental doctrines of our holy religion.

In the following issues I will be continuing to consider, not only the importance of Creeds and Confessions, but will also deal with the major objections to Creeds and Confessions, and some of the recent statements made against Dr. Draper's statement.

SPURGEON ON THE LONDON CONFESSION

Dearly Beloved:

This ancient document is a most excellent epitome of the things most surely believed among us. By the preserving hand of the Triune Jehovah, we have been faithful to the great points of our glorious gospel, and we feel more resolved perpetually to abide by them.

This little volume is not issued as an authoritative rule, or code of faith, whereby you are to be fettered, but as an 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 to you. May our Father, who is in Heaven, smile on us as ever! Brethren, pray.

                                                                                 Your affectionate Minister,
                                                                                          C. H. Spurgeon

 

¹ "Good News" is a publication of North Pampano Baptist Church, 1101 N.E. 33rd Street, Pampano Beach, Florida 33064, where Ernest C. Reisinger was pastor at the time of the writing of this publicaiton.

The Reformed Reader Home Page  Copyright 1999, The Reformed Reader, All Rights Reserved