On the Validity & Value of Confessions of Faith, Part I
Posted by deangonzales on July 6, 2008
Introduction & Definition
In June of 1922, the Northern Baptist Convention convened under the theme, “Agreed to Differ, but Resolved to Love.” Some may debate whether the resolution was successfully carried out. No one will dispute that they “agreed to differ.” Perhaps one of the sharpest differences came to a head when William Bell Riley motioned that the Convention adopt The New Hampshire Confession of Faith as its doctrinal standard. Riley was the pastor of First Baptist Church of Minneapolis, and he represented the Fundamentalists in the Convention. However, Riley’s motion was challenged with a substitute motion from Cornelius Woelfkin, pastor of Park Avenue Baptist, New York. Woelfkin, a moderate, replied that “the New Testament is the all-sufficient ground of our faith and practice, and we need no other statement.” [1]
If you were there and had to take sides, which side would you have taken? Would you have agreed with the position that said in essence, “No creed but the New Testament” (or no creed but the Bible)? Or would have voted with Riley to adopt a confession of faith? To bring the question to bear upon the ecclesiastical polity of our churches: should our churches be confessional or non-confessional? In the next few posts, I’d like to argue for the validity and value of creeds and confessions of faith. But before we venture too far, let’s start with a definition.
One of the most thorough and helpful studies on this subject is Philip Schaff’s three-volume work, The Creeds of Christendom.[2] According to Dr. Schaff, both a confession of faith and a catechism are a form of creed.[3] The term “creed” comes from the Latin word credo, which means, “I believe.” In fact, it is the first word that appears in the so-called Apostles’ Creed,[4] which begins, “I believe [credo] in God the Father Almighty.” Thus, confessions and catechisms as creeds are expressions of faith. That is, they indicate what a Christian or church understands and believes the Bible to teach regarding faith and life. But Schaff offers us a more formal definition as well. “A Creed,” he says, “is a confession of faith for public use, or a form of words setting forth with authority certain articles of belief, which are regarded by the framers as necessary for salvation, or at least for the well-being of the Christian Church.”[5] Let me clarify a number of elements in that definition.
(1) First of all, Schaff refers to a creed as a “confession of faith for public use” (emphasis mine). And since creeds are intended for public use, they are usually written.
(2) Secondly, Schaff acknowledges that creeds set forth articles of faith “with authority.” Later in his work, he specifies the kind of authority that he has in view. Comparing the authority of creeds with the authority of Scripture, Schaff writes, “The Bible is the rule of faith (regula fidei); the Confession [is] the rule of doctrine (regula doctrinae). The Bible has, therefore, a divine and absolute [authority], the Confession only an ecclesiastical and relative authority.”[6]
Now as Protestant Evangelicals, we agree with Schaff’s position. Unlike the Catholic and Orthodox churches, we do not accord our creeds equal authority with Scripture. There are at least two ramifications that follow:
(a) The Confession’s authority must always be subordinate to the authority of Scripture. Because the Bible is God’s word, it is our supreme authority in matters of faith and practice. The Confession, on the other hand, represents the church’s interpretation of God’s word and is an expression of human authority. Therefore, we must always view our Confession as subordinate to the Bible.
(b) Confessions, unlike the Scripture, are fallible. Therefore, confessions are subject to correction, modification, and improvement. A case in point is the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). The WCF is probably the greatest creed ever written. Yet the Congregationalists as well as our Baptist forefathers felt that certain doctrines in that Confession needed to be corrected or revised. As a result, they produced the Savoy Declaration and the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 (1689 LBC) respectively. These two confessions may be viewed as modified versions of the Westminster.[7]
(3) Finally, with respect to Schaff’s definition, notice that creeds or confessions may contain articles of faith that vary in level of importance. Some of the articles are very important, being “necessary for salvation.” Whereas other articles are of relative importance for “the well-being of the church.”
This will be important for us to remember. The 1689 LBC does contain, as do all good creeds, some doctrines that I view as essential to the credibility of one’s profession of faith. Some of those doctrines would include the divine authority of Scripture, the deity of Christ, man’s depravity and need for salvation, the vicarious atonement of Christ on the cross on behalf of sinners, justification by faith alone, and the bodily resurrection. To disagree with these doctrines would call into question one’s Christian profession. On the other hand, I do not believe or claim that one must agree with all the doctrines in the 1689 LBC in order to be saved. In fact, it’s possible to be a genuine Christian and yet to disagree at some points with this confession. I do believe that a rejection of the non-essential teachings of the 1689 LBC can, in my view, hinder one’s well-being or the well-being of the church.[8] Nevertheless, I certainly would not argue for full agreement with the 1689 LBC as a requisite for salvation.
With these things in view, let me offer you a modified and modernized version of Schaff’s definition:
A creed or a confession of faith is the church’s doctrinal standard in written form, identifying and expounding those doctrines of Scripture that are essential for salvation, as well as those doctrines of Scripture that are necessary for the spiritual well-being of the Christian and of the church.[9]
In the next installment, I’ll attempt to defend the validity of adopting a confessional standard as defined above.
[1] David O. Beale, In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850 (Greenville: Unusual Publications, 1986), 206.
[2] Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols. (New York: Harper and Row, 1931; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990).
[3] The primary difference between a confession and catechism is that the latter, derived from the Greek katechein, “to teach with the mouth,” is written in question-and-answer form. By the middle of the fourth century the term, “symbol,” came to be used of creedal statements.
[4] The Apostles’ Creed was once thought to be of apostolic origin. More correctly, it should be viewed as a summary of apostolic teaching, which eventually reached its final form by the end of the fifth century. See Schaff, 1:16-20.
[5] Schaff, 1:3, 4.
[6] Ibid. 1:7.
[7] Of course, I acknowledge that our Presbyterian brethren would view these later confessions as aberrations rather than improvements to the WCF. Nevertheless, I know of no evangelical Presbyterian that would defend the WCF as infallible or incapable of improvement.
[8] If a doctrine or teaching has no bearing whatsoever upon the spiritual health of a Christian or church, then it probably has no business in a creed.
[9] Millard Erickson offers a more concise definition. He defines a creed as “a summary of the beliefs of a person or group, often a denomination.” Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), 39. But this definition is too general and vague for our purposes.
July 6th, 2008 at 3:26 am
Pastor Gonzales,
Looking forward to the rest of the series.
You left me hanging about the outcome of the motion at the Northern Baptist Convention though! Now I’ll have to look it up, thereby betraying my ignorance of Baptist church history.
Jeremiah
September 4th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
[...] their value to the church (see “On the Validity & Value of Confessions of Faith,” Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV). Of all the historical creeds, I believe those of the Reformed [...]
September 18th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
[...] part study entitled, "On the Validity & Value of Confessions of Faith" elsewhere (Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV), which may be of some help. And to balance out my emphasis on the need [...]
February 19th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
[...] with 3 comments Site has moved. Click here. [...]
May 8th, 2009 at 1:07 am
[...] [...]