Are creeds, confessions, and theological language important?

[UnitedWithChrist]

I use the creeds to check myself and others by. Mainly the Ecumenical Creeds that define Christianity up until the Council of Ephesus in 431. This covers everything from Theology to Eschatology. These point out the cults and sects that have removed themselves from the Church but exist under that disguise. I also check in with the later creeds that continue in that vein. So my roots run deep where many today have roots only one or two hundred years old.

Yeah, by the way I don't say that anyone should believe every single line of creeds, confessions, and catechisms. Usually these documents have Scriptural proofs, and the person should review the Scriptures to see if they are correct on a particular issue.

I find that the above creeds, confessions, and catechisms reflect biblical teaching for the most part, although I disagree with them on minor issues. However, the fact that they provide decent answers to pertinent questions is worthwhile.

I find that anti-creedal, confession, catechism people are often vapid and vacuous, or have an agenda of their own they are pressing.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Whats your thoughts on this?

Baptist faith and message 2000

V. God's Purpose of Grace
Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility.

All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.

I would agree with it, if you are asking me.

Perhaps you don't think that this line reflects Reformed theology but it does :

It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end

It is basically talking about the concept of compatibilism, which I totally agree with.

For instance, Joseph's brothers meant evil by sending him off into slavery, but God meant it for good. The evil acts of men don't negate God's decrees, nor are they forced to do those acts. They do them according to their fallen nature. God's decree somehow involves man's creaturely free will at the same time.

Notice I said "creaturely free will". He doesn't have an autonomous free will, but one that is subject to his fallen or redeemed nature, whichever nature he possesses.

 

[NOV25]

I would agree with it, if you are asking me.

Perhaps you don't think that this line reflects Reformed theology but it does :

It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end

It is basically talking about the concept of compatibilism, which I totally agree with.

For instance, Joseph's brothers meant evil by sending him off into slavery, but God meant it for good. The evil acts of men don't negate God's decrees, nor are they forced to do those acts. They do them according to their fallen nature. God's decree somehow involves man's creaturely free will at the same time.

Notice I said "creaturely free will". He doesn't have an autonomous free will, but one that is subject to his fallen or redeemed nature, whichever nature he possesses.

Appreciate it.

How is it that some local churches claim adherence to this statement but the congregants and even the preacher teach against it? I wonder how many free willers here on CC are members of these types of churches, having themselves claimed agreement with this statement of faith to become a member.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Appreciate it.

How is it that some local churches claim adherence to this statement but the congregants and even the preacher teach against it? I wonder how many free willers here on CC are members of these types of churches, having themselves claimed agreement with this statement of faith to become a member.

It's a good question.

My understanding is that this statement came from the confession the Southern Baptists have adopted, if I remember right.

However, it's wording is very similar to the Westminster Confession or the London Baptist Confession.

Yet, some Southern Baptists follow Leighton Flowers, who is almost Pelagian, and probably prescribed to this confession.

LOL

I don't know how to sort that all out.

As you probably know I am Reformed Baptist in my theology, although not precisely because I don't agree with their view on the Sabbath, but it is a minor nuance to me.

 

[NOV25]

It's a good question.

My understanding is that this statement came from the confession the Southern Baptists have adopted, if I remember right.

However, it's wording is very similar to the Westminster Confession or the London Baptist Confession.

Yet, some Southern Baptists follow Leighton Flowers, who is almost Pelagian, and probably prescribed to this confession.

LOL

I don't know how to sort that all out.

As you probably know I am Reformed Baptist in my theology, although not precisely because I don't agree with their view on the Sabbath, but it is a minor nuance to me.

Perhaps they don’t think things through.
They’re like:

I agree with the Baptist confession of faith except on the fall of man, God’s sovereignty, the atonement, justification, sanctification...

Lol, it’s a head scratcher for sure 🤔

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Perhaps they don’t think things through.
They’re like:

I agree with the Baptist confession of faith except on the fall of man, God’s sovereignty, the atonement, justification, sanctification...

Lol, it’s a head scratcher for sure 🤔

Some SBC congregations are Reformed but many have left the SBC due to various teachings including the "social justice" agenda.

I visited a church like that near me..and I would likely attend their services regular but they are 42 miles from me. Love the pastor's teaching and general attitude though. They left the SBC due to the social justice issue.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Appreciate it.

How is it that some local churches claim adherence to this statement but the congregants and even the preacher teach against it? I wonder how many free willers here on CC are members of these types of churches, having themselves claimed agreement with this statement of faith to become a member.

It could be that many have.

Finney himself affirmed the Westminster Confession and admitted later he didn't even read it. That gave him preaching credentials, and access to Reformed believers..then he taught his Pelagian views under their auspices.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

]

The main problem with your premise is that the older the creeds, confessions or catechisms are the more sound you think they are. Whereas some of us do not trust those older creeds and such based on the people that introduced them.

I personally believe antichrist [Satan] turned Christianity early and the real church had to go into hiding. Like through the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisitions where Christianity became very ugly under Rome's leadership. My second book points out that sullied history that we get our traditions from.

Whereas you think that the Adventist Movement in the mid Nineteenth and the Pentecostal of the early Twentieth are bad things, I think just the opposite. I am sorry that pushy Adventists and Pentecostals have put you off. They have me also but I am not going to let Satan steal the truths they introduced because of that. I understand the spirit within you will not let you agree with me and I am alright with that. I believe we are slowly finding our way back to the real truths of God's word and prophecies.

That God's word is debated and discussed in truth or in error is good for all involved. You can proclaim your version from the rooftops and I can proclaim mine. When all is said and done we will see which version God backs up.

By the way, aren't you the one who claims that man becomes God in the resurrection, in the same sense as the Father and the Son?

Forgive me if I am wrong, but this is an abominable teaching. I used to believe it, as an Armstrongite, but utterly reject it now.

It is a blasphemous claim.

So, I don't think you would have any grounds for criticizing the creeds, confessions and catechisms if you are the person who believes this blasphemous teaching.

God alone is uncreated, unique, and worthy of worship. For a man to make the claim that he will become God is extreme blasphemy.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

The lack of creeds, confessions, and catechisms has led to a bunch of autonomous men with peculiar interpretations of Scripture, in utter disregard to the communal nature of the church and the believers which have come before us.

This leaves room for loons like Herbert Armstrong, Ellen G. White, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, and Charles Taze Russell to come along claiming they have "the Truth".

And, their truth claims seem credible because they have often developed a metanarrative (overarching storyline) that sounds credible on the surface, but is based on serious hermeneutic flaws.

Add to this the creative reinterpretation of church history that accompanies their teachings (such as "Two Babylons" and the various alternate church histories I mentioned), and you have a recipe for cultic interpretations.

Finally, the men who form these sorts of worldviews are prideful, vain, autonomous individuals who are bent toward thinking that God speaks closer to them than anyone else, and they listen closer than other Christians.

Unfortunately, it seems like Christianity attracts a lot of these types.

I can understand that no creeds, confessions, and catechisms are perfect, and I realize Roman Catholicism went way off into la-la land, but the dangers of these sorts of Restorationist cults are FAR WORSE.

As someone who belonged to one, I will attest to that. The Armstrongite cult was about the same level of credibility as National Enquirer gossip and conspiracy articles, if you guys know about those...they appeal to people with about a 5th grade level of reading comprehension and a lot of pride. Unfortunately, I was indoctrinated at an early age, at some level, and became a baptized member as a young adult, without much exposure to sounder teachings like the Reformed community. I was about 32 when I rejected their teachings.

Their teaching basically focused on their election to be rulers in the Millennium, so to the naive, vain, young person, this appeals to a certain personality type who thinks that God favors them over others because of some inherent positive trait. Cultic movements appeal to the flesh like this.

As a Reformed person, I know that God chooses people who are not humanly appealing, to more clearly show his power, so that none can boast (1 Cor 1:26ff). This is a total turnoff to the fleshly man, who is easily deceived by cultic propaganda and pridefulness.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Here's a good article on the value of creeds and confessions.

https://www.crossway.org/articles/1...-the-churchs-historic-creeds-and-confessions/

I'm not a big fan of anti-creed, anti-confession Christianity. I believe the trend toward this began with Charles Finney, who was a rank heretic even though he is considered a hero by some free-willer evangelicals.

Cultic organizations such as those which deny the Trinity and deity of Christ definitely profit from the widespread ignorance of evangelicals regarding core Christian doctrines.

The first thing cults will do is create some alternate church history which places them as part of the defenders of the true faith, and others as dupes that are fooled by Roman Catholicism (that's the usual claim).

This is the Kool-aid that is part of the propaganda cultists manufacture in order to discredit sound Christianity. Anti-Trinitarians, those against the deity of Christ those that deny the canon of Scripture, and Judaizers all use this tactic to some degree.

How do I know this? I used to be an anti-Trinitarian Judaizer cultist.

Unfortunately, though, the hatred of creeds and confessions is part of Americana. Americans love to rebel against anything and everything including sound doctrine Luckily, most evangelicals stop at full-blown heresy though.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

10 Things You Should Know about the Church’s Historic Creeds and Confessions

by: Chad Van Dixhoorn

1. Creeds are honest.
Honesty is the original impulse behind almost every statement of faith. Cults hide what they believe until you’re so far into the riptide that you can’t do anything about it. Honest churches do the opposite: they announce what they do believe and (in the best creeds and confessions) even a few things that they don’t. We want everyone to know the most important facts and ideas revealed in the Bible and denied by the Bible, so we summarize them in our creeds.

2. Creeds promote unity.
The best doctrinal summaries promote church unity. They help us to identify, through a common set of priorities and teachings, what we have in common with other Christians. And that is not all. These summaries also have the potential to create peace in the church, since people coming to the church will readily be able to see what it teaches, and will be able to compare it with the Scriptures, which is the only basis on which Christian teaching should be built. Avoiding doctrinal disguises minimizes unhappy surprises.

3. Creeds are old.
The classic Christian Creeds were written in the early history of the church. Most confessions were written sometime during the Protestant Reformation. This is useful. When it comes to doctrinal statements (and much else besides!) age is more of a benefit than a liability—it is good to study texts which remind us that Christianity was not invented last Tuesday.

4. Creeds and confessions can be long.
Lengthy creeds and confessions are a good thing! Evangelical statements of faith are often too short and not sufficiently theological. As I see it, the church needs to experiment with theological maximalism, in place of its current minimalism, if we are to maintain a faithful witness to Christ in our generation. A dozen doctrinal points on a website is probably inadequate for the church’s thriving, for its mission not only to evangelize but also to teach the nations. Big creeds and confessions hold out a large faith for us to own, offering a welcome view of the triune God and his work and more robust statements of the gospel of Christ.

5. Creeds remind us we are not alone.
Classic creeds remind us that we don’t simply read the Bible by ourselves. We read the Bible as one body and find unity in so doing. Reciting a creed as a church declares that we read the bible in ways similar to other Christians in the depth and in the breadth of the church—over time and around the world.

6. Creeds and confessions expose disagreements.
Creeds also show how we disagree. This, too, is good. Discussing our differences is better than papering over them and pretending they don’t exist. By the time of the Protestant Reformation of the 1500s, so much had been learned—and so many doctrines were disputed between the Reformers and Rome—that the category of creed was supplemented by longer lists of doctrines that Christians confessed. Creeds were still in use, most often in worship, but now confessions were written to expound what Lutheran and Reformed Christians believed. These confessions carefully articulated what doctrines were shared in common with the old faith of Rome, and where the Reformers were forced to disagree with Rome in their recovery of the teachings of the early church, and most basically, of the Bible. They also explain where Reformers disagreed with one another. This is helpful, for knowing where we disagree allows us to talk at the curb. Living with labels, but without understanding, results in verbal grenades being lobbed over walls.
7. Creeds and confessions help us learn.
Creeds and confessions pay careful attention to precise wording. They provide the kind of labeling that allows for Christian learning. These documents function as teaching materials that lead us deeper into the Christian faith. With texts like these, Christians no longer need to be content with speaking of “salvation”, for example, only in general. Once alert to fuller teaching, Christians can then celebrate justification, discover adoption, and bless God for sanctification, perseverance, and glorification.

8. Creeds and confessions help us to avoid error.
Even as creeds and confessions served as bulwarks against doctrinal error in time past, they continue to do so in the present. Errorists and heretics are often uncreative. The basic shape of their faults remain the same over the centuries. Creeds set doctrinal parameters that safeguard the principles of the church against the increasingly common tendency to be inclined toward everything new and fancy. Tip: It’s helpful for pastors to read the relevant section in a creed or confession before preaching a tricky doctrine, or one that is easy to state incorrectly.

9. Creeds and confessions help us worship.
Creeds function not only as a teaching tool but as a worshipping tool as we remember why it is that we gather together: it is because of who God is and because of what he has done. While not usually used in worship, confessions are also useful for worship. Careful distinctions provide richer material for praise than do broad generalizations. Saying more about the character of God and the grace of the gospel encourages more confidence in prayer and praise.

10. Creeds and confessions are biblical.
From the beginning, the word of God has offered, and the people of God have employed, statements of faith. Old Testament readers encounter such a statement in the capstone of the books of Moses: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deut. 6:3). It is what New Testament readers see when Paul provides the Corinthians with a summary of his own teaching: “I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve” (1 Cor. 15:3-4). In Paul’s instruction to Timothy, he reminds Timothy to follow the pattern of sound words (2 Tim. 1:13) so that the church would not be tossed about in uncertainty. Biblical summaries are biblical!


https://www.crossway.org/articles/1...-the-churchs-historic-creeds-and-confessions/

 

[Bbrdrd]

Creeds and such can be very useful, but often they lead to abuses. As a response to those who are presenting things that are clearly unbiblical a creed or confessional statement can be a quick remedy, but more often than not the specifics end up bogging us down to such a degree that their usefulness is outweighed by their separation. For example, the nicene-constantinople creed does a good job of spelling out that Jesus is fully God. Yet when we nail it down to a specific understanding of how Jesus is God we've gone beyond the merits of Biblical revelation. This is especially visible in something like the anathasian creed where the East and West became divided as to the role of Jesus within the Godhead, which is pretty much a purely speculative endeavor. What the Bible reveals of the inner life of God, we must hold to. What we infer from that, we must be generous in.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Creeds and such can be very useful, but often they lead to abuses. As a response to those who are presenting things that are clearly unbiblical a creed or confessional statement can be a quick remedy, but more often than not the specifics end up bogging us down to such a degree that their usefulness is outweighed by their separation. For example, the nicene-constantinople creed does a good job of spelling out that Jesus is fully God. Yet when we nail it down to a specific understanding of how Jesus is God we've gone beyond the merits of Biblical revelation. This is especially visible in something like the anathasian creed where the East and West became divided as to the role of Jesus within the Godhead, which is pretty much a purely speculative endeavor. What the Bible reveals of the inner life of God, we must hold to. What we infer from that, we must be generous in.

Well, the first question I would have is whether you agree that Jesus is fully God and fully glorified man. The second question I would ask is whether you believe the Trinity is a biblical doctrine.

If a person denies either, they are not a Christian. There is no basis for agreement.

I believe that the role of Jesus is solid within the Godhead. The Father is the source, and the one who elects. The Son is the one who redeems. The Holy Spirit is the one who applies redemption.

I am uncertain which role you would take exception with.

Care to clarify?

 

[Bbrdrd]

Well, the first question I would have is whether you agree that Jesus is fully God and fully glorified man. The second question I would ask is whether you believe the Trinity is a biblical doctrine.

If a person denies either, they are not a Christian. There is no basis for agreement.

I believe that the role of Jesus is solid within the Godhead. The Father is the source, and the one who elects. The Son is the one who redeems. The Holy Spirit is the one who applies redemption.

I am uncertain which role you would take exception with.

Care to clarify?

I'm in full agreement with those, but the athanasian creed caused division because of the filoque clause. The Eastern Christians understand that substantially Jesus is equal with the Father, but as a matter of office He is subordinate. Such things are debateable within what Scripture entails, as the Trinity is left largely undefined within Biblical revelation beyond ontological substance. This is exactly why creeds can break down beyond their initial usefulness and instead serve as nothing more than division tactics as people understand different aspects in different manners.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Creeds and such can be very useful, but often they lead to abuses. As a response to those who are presenting things that are clearly unbiblical a creed or confessional statement can be a quick remedy, but more often than not the specifics end up bogging us down to such a degree that their usefulness is outweighed by their separation. For example, the nicene-constantinople creed does a good job of spelling out that Jesus is fully God. Yet when we nail it down to a specific understanding of how Jesus is God we've gone beyond the merits of Biblical revelation. This is especially visible in something like the anathasian creed where the East and West became divided as to the role of Jesus within the Godhead, which is pretty much a purely speculative endeavor. What the Bible reveals of the inner life of God, we must hold to. What we infer from that, we must be generous in.

By the way, it has been my experience that individuals who disagree on essentials like the Trinity and the deity of Christ really aren't interested in reconciling with Christianity. They are wolves who want to attack believers and assimilate them if possible. They aren't interested in changing their doctrine.

I belonged to a cult as a young man. The cult specifically had issues with the fact that Christians do not compromise on the Trinity, and used this as a point of attack. Why would a person be lost because they don't agree with the Trinity? was the question they asked.

Well, in reality what they didn't tell you is that if you weren't a part of their organization, they considered you to be lost. So, you had to believe their teachings, or you weren't even considered to be a Christian. Denying the Trinity was just one of the doctrines you had to agree with. There were a lot more peculiar things you had to agree with.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

I'm in full agreement with those, but the athanasian creed caused division because of the filoque clause. The Eastern Christians understand that substantially Jesus is equal with the Father, but as a matter of office He is subordinate. Such things are debateable within what Scripture entails, as the Trinity is left largely undefined within Biblical revelation beyond ontological substance. This is exactly why creeds can break down beyond their initial usefulness and instead serve as nothing more than division tactics as people understand different aspects in different manners.

I would not disagree with Eastern Christianity if you have explained their position correctly, so I am sure there are evangelicals which hold the same view. I think there are pockets of Christians which hold another view, though, but I believe in eternal subordination. I don't think this is an issue that many pastors are well trained concerning.

If the Father eternally begat the Son, then there is a subordination in terms of role but not essence.

 

[Bbrdrd]

I would not disagree with Eastern Christianity if you have explained their position correctly, so I am sure there are evangelicals which hold the same view. I think there are pockets of Christians which hold another view, though, but I believe in eternal subordination. I don't think this is an issue that many pastors are well trained concerning.

If the Father eternally begat the Son, then there is a subordination in terms of role but not essence.

That's exactly my point...we're limited in what we say, and sometimes we can say the same thing in different words and think there is a conflict when there is in fact none. This is the limitation of creeds, as they serve to divide based on semantic issues. In refuting heresies they can be excellent, but in establishing doctrine they often lead to more division than their worth entails.

 

[Nebuchadnezzer]

Nicene Creed;

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,


And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God
the Father almighty.
From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.


I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Christian Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

What you cited is not the Nicene Creed. It is the Apostles Creed.

Nicene Creed pledges allegiance and devotion to the Roman Catholic Church (its a pledge of allegiance and devotion to the catholic and apostolic[succession])

It mentions about baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but doesn't confess we repented of our sins and that forgiveness of sins was obtained.

Baptism is about more than the washing of sins, its about dying with Christ and being born again with Him.

Nicene Creed doesn't mention about being born again of Spirit. It merely talks about belief in the existence of the Spirit.

Nicene Creed is a man-made tradition. Do not recite it, Follow God!!!
-----------------------
I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,

and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen

 

[Dave-L]

Do Christians know about their roots? I trace mine all the way back to the Ecumenical Creeds and from there into the NT as summarized by them. Today, many trace their roots back to the 1800s Dispensationalism outbreak, condemned as heresy by the Council of Ephesus in 431 as a form of premillennialism. Others trace their roots back to the 1900s Pentecostal outbreak on Azusa street in Los Angeles. Do you know your documented history?

 

[Grandpa]

Do Christians know about their roots? I trace mine all the way back to the Ecumenical Creeds and from there into the NT as summarized by them. Today, many trace their roots back to the 1800s Dispensationalism outbreak, condemned as heresy by the Council of Ephesus in 431 as a form of premillennialism. Others trace their roots back to the 1900s Pentecostal outbreak on Azusa street in Los Angeles. Do you know your documented history?

People can be wrong for a really long time.

Look at the Pharisees and the RCC.

In fact, the creeds themselves are kind of vague and could probably be interpreted in different, contradictory ways.

But I think its good for a church to state what they believe in simple, straightforward ways.