Apr 10 2008
To Creed or not to Creed?
(This is our first ‘blog’ post. These are meant to stimulate thought and interaction, so comments are welcome. Thanks!)
In our evening services, we’ve started a sermon series on the Apostle’s Creed. Baptists aren’t known for being a denomination that uses any Creeds. Why do you think that is?
To take things further, it has been said that the Judaism from which Christianity came was less concerned with ‘orthodoxy’ (right belief) than with ‘ortho-praxy’ (right action). What is the value of an itemised ‘list’ of correct beliefs?
19 Responses to “To Creed or not to Creed?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Been a Baptist as long as can remember i would like to think that we do not use any creeds is because they could just become a bunch of words we just repeat and become meanless.
Itemising a list of correct beliefs is of great value as it deals with each truth separately. eg The Baptist Confession Of 1686. I like Spurgeons quote on this documment.
“This ancient document is the most excellent epitone of the things most surely believed amongst us. It is not issued as an authoritative rule or code of faith, whereby you may be fettered, but as a means of edification in righteousness. It is an excellent, though not inspired, expression of the teaching of the Holy scriptures by which all confessions are measured. We hold to the humbling thruths of God’s sovereign grace in the salvation of lost sinners. Salvation is through Christ alone and faith alone.
To see the Document visit http://www.gty.org
Congratulations warrior4jesus! You’re the first commenter on the first nbc.org.nz ‘blog’ post!
Thanks for sharing.
I take it you’re a bit of a fan of the 1686 confession!
-d-
Thanx-d-
I guess i am a fan,its actually 1689 not 1686 as i typed in my previous post and its the Spurgeon edition.
I encourage others to share and maybe put their veiws forward its a great way to know what we actually believe…..
I think the fact that Baptists (and many other Protestant denominations) do not place much importance on Creeds comes from our pre-occupation with “Sola Scriptura”. Modern Christians have become quite Bible only and Creeds are often viewed as man-made traditions. While I agree with the five solas, Creeds are a good summary of what is contained in scripture. Also the line containing the phrase “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church” causes confusion in reformed churches.
The Creeds are incredibly useful as heresy detectors! I think the main reason the Apostles’ Creed was written was to make sure groups like the Gnostics were excluded from Christianity. This is still incredibly for today when one considers the aberrant theology taught by groups such as The Jehovah’s Witness’ and Mormons for example. Knowing the Creed and related doctrines ensures that believers can recognise deviant doctrine when they see it. One gripe I have with Christians of this generation is that they do not know what their religion teaches. The Apostles’ Creed gives a pretty good framework of what Christians believe.
Thanks, Memento Mori!
Good observations, in my view. Perhaps sometimes in our zeal to be ‘biblical’ we forget that far from reading the Bible in an interpretive vacuum, we have all kinds of interpretive traditions we stand in, and often don’t appreciate. I agree that the Creeds are more helpful than we may often realise.
Cheers,
-d-
Let’s not forget that the early reformers were not slow to produce confessions of faith. Sola Scriptura doesn’t rule out tradition full stop. It simply states the Scriptures are the sole “infallible” rule of faith.
The phrase, ‘the holy catholic church’ shouldn’t cause any problem. Catholic simply means universal. It has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church.
I have been studying Ephesians 4 recently, and have noticed the unity were are to grow towards as a church includes doctrinal unity. Creeds have an important place in this regard.
Is it just me or are we lacking some kind of statement of faith on this website?
Hi Ben,
I just wanted to clarify myself a bit. I’m not saying that Sola Scriptura doesn’t allow us to use Creeds, but in modern times all our emphasis has been on the primary authority and writings of the early church have fallen by the wayside.
I agree the phrase “the holy catholic church” shouldn’t cause a problem but I have seen it cause a problem. Not everyone is aware that catholic means universal and thinks Roman Catholic Church instead. At a previous Church I attended the Minister did not make a point of explaining this and it left a lot of the congregation a bit perplexed. Fortunately I know the Pastors at NBC won’t neglect to articulate that point well when they come to it (I know Peter wanted to explain it last Sunday).
A statement of faith is a superb idea. Why isn’t there one?
Good exchanges, guys!
And good suggestion re: statement of faith, I’ll find the text for what we’ve got up in the foyer and put that up - thanks for the observation!
-d-
Ask and ye shall receive…
http://nbc.org.nz/about/statement-of-faith
-d-
Hi Dale,
Thanks for putting up the statement of faith. But do you think we could put a bit more meat on the bones? It’s a long way from the 1689 Baptist confession Warrior4Jesus mentioned. Surely the Bible is clear enough to commit ourselves to a bit more definition?
The question of how specific should a communities’ ‘official statement of beliefs’ be is an interesting one. For various reasons, some would want quite specific, detailed points included, while for other various reasons, others would be content with a more basic framework.
I transcribed the statement of faith word-for-word as it reads on a poster in our foyer. I personally think it’s quite an appropriate statement, especially given the ‘foyer’ context. A ‘deacons meeting’ context would be different. And in a sense, the website is more of an ‘online-foyer’, so to speak.
Thoughts from others?
-d-
So even though both groups have ‘various reasons’ for the amount of detail they would like in a statement of faith, the ‘basic’ group win by default it would seem?
Perhaps we could have two statements of faith to cater for both groups. One with a ‘basic framework’ for those who aren’t too bothered. And a detailed one for people who actually care about what we believe.
For example, the Nicene and Chalcedonian creeds have been excepted by Christians in general as good definitive (not exhaustive) statements of what the Bible teaches regarding the Trinity and the person of Jesus Christ. These are a hang of a lot more specific than saying we believe Jesus is human and divine (like some kind of demi-god?). Do we as a church affirm these creeds?
Do we as a people place a stake in the ground regarding the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible? Are we going to unite with our brothers in affirming the ‘Chicago statement on Biblical Inerrancy’? http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy
Do we have an official position on the Biblical manhood and womanhood debate (egalitarian or complementarian?) Can we unite over the danvers statement http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/The-Danvers-Statement
It seems strange that we as a Baptist church are specific in telling people what we believe about the mode of baptism (i.e. full immersion) but not saying that we believe in believer’s baptism (as opposed to infant baptism), which is the more significant belief.
If we are concerned to avoid controversy, then we should remember that every point of theology that is worth anything has been controversial at some point in church history. What will you have left if you want to avoid controversy?
Thanks Ben, for the comment and helpful links,
I hope you didn’t take my comments to imply that detail = bad. In the right context, detail is not only good, but a must.
Also, the main reason (the only reason, really!) for choosing that specific form was that it was what has been up in the foyer since before I came here. And again, this website is much like an ‘online foyer’ to the church. I hope you don’t take the choice of that statement as somehow meaning that ‘basic’ expressions have ‘won by default’. I also hope you don’t assume that persons who are ‘OK’ with such a basic statement (used in such a context) automatically don’t ‘actually care about what we believe’…
While we’re not merely out to ‘avoid controversy’ (certainly not!), it seems that a ‘foyer’ context (online or actual!) is not the ideal place for it.
Hi Dale. Please don’t take my comments as a personal attack.
I would question whether the ‘about us’ section of the church website is equivalent to an online foyer. Where else would one look for detailed information about what we believe? If I was looking for a church, that is the first thing I would look for. Of course, I may just be a sole psycho
Now to make a completely different comment. If Judaism was not so concerned with orthodoxy, then how come Paul could raise such a stir by mentioning the resurrection of the dead? And the Shema begins with a theological statement as the basis of it’s orthopraxy. But the issue is not whether Judaism was concerned with orthodoxy or not, but whether God wants us to be concerned with it. Our church says Northcote Baptist Church…
…is a community of people who seek to follow Jesus in all of life. By all of life, do we include the life of the mind?
Cheers Ben,
No personal attack taken!
Also, the form of the questions in the orginal ‘blog’ post (above) were to raise them in such a way that engenders discussion, not necessarily to endorse the (in my view) simplistic statement about Judaism being more concerned with o-praxy than with o-doxy. I doubt anyone at Northcote (or within Judaism) thinks (thought) that God doesn’t want us to be concerned with orthodoxy!
And likewise, I doubt anyone would exclude the life of the mind from the ‘all of life’ in which we seek to follow Jesus in.
It is not a question of whether we would exclude ‘the life of the mind’. I know that we don’t. But are we ’seeking’ the life of the mind. Do we seek (or pursue) to follow Jesus in a deeper understanding of the truth?
I’m just going to chuck in my two cents worth seeing as Dale called for thoughts from others…
As far as the statement of faith goes I think it does ok. It covers the fundamental ideas while being concise enough that people will bother to read it. In my view a statement of faith should leave room for debate on non-essential theology (e.g. Calvinism versus Arminianism) but not leave room for erroneous belief to slip in (e.g. Modalism).
That being said I think a couple of things could be better described in the current statement of faith with the addition of a few words. For instance:
I would add to the Trinity that God is one being made up of three personages and each personage is co-existent, co-eternal and fully God.
Ben is right in what he said regarding the section about Christ. Just mentioning that he has two natures doesn’t quite cut the mustard for me either. I’d like to see more of the hypostatic union outlined so there isn’t room to dilute or mix the two natures (no demi-gods allowed).
I also think the section on baptism should include not just the mode but take more of a stance against paedo-baptism and baptismal regeneration.
Including a statement about Christ returning (to judge the quick and the dead?) would also be worthwhile. I’d prefer the statement of faith had a heading for itself but I’m sure changing a website is a nuisance.
Again, good discussion here.
As pastors, Peter, Shawn and I are all fine with the current statement, but I’ll suggest we add an additional note of affirmation of the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds.
Cheers!
-d-