Posted by deangonzales on November 28, 2009
Many Reformed Christians who believe in the validity of infant baptism find it odd that certain Baptist congregations would employ the nomenclature “Reformed Baptist.” Indeed, some Reformed ministers and theologians today are accusing Reformed Baptists of something like “identity theft.” R. Scott Clark, for example, argues in his recently published book Recovering the Reformed Confession that a infant baptism is an essential element of covenant theology, that one cannot have one without the other. So despite the fact that most who call themselves “Reformed Baptist” today affirm a Confession of Faith whose language and theology was drawn largely from the Westminster Confession, we are, in the mind of Clark and others, unwarranted in our employment of the adjective “Reformed.” That ecclesiastical parameters of that adjective were set in ecclesiastical stone by the synods and councils of the 16th and 17th centuries.
Of course, we who call ourselves “Reformed Baptists” might point out the language changes over time–even ecclesiastical language. “Lutheran” was initially used more broadly to refer to all sorts of anti-Romanists. Later, it was narrowed to refer to those who affirm The Augsburg Confession and/or The Formula of Concord. Conversely, it might be argued that the term “Reformed” has changed over time. Just as synods and councils met in the 16th and 17th century, so met an assembly of messengers from various congregations at the end of the 20th century:
The ASSOCIATION OF REFORMED BAPTIST CHURCHES OF AMERICA was founded on March 11, 1997. On that day the first General Assembly met to establish a charter membership of 24 churches from 14 states.
And on that day they ratified an ecclesiastical constitution that identifies their doctrinal standard, which would define them theologically and ecclesiastically:
While we hold tenaciously to the inerrant, infallible and sufficient Word of God as found in the sixty-six books of the Bible (this being our final source of faith and practice), we embrace and adopt the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 as a faithful expression of the doctrine taught in the Scriptures.
So these churches used the 1689 as a means to define themselves as an association of “Reformed Baptist” churches just as Dr. Clark alleges the delegates at Dordtrecht and Westminster Abby did previously.
One of Clark’s responses to this kind of reasoning is to accuse us of what he calls “Reformed Narcissism,” which he illustrates with the following syllogism:
1. I am Reformed
2. I think x
3. Therefore x is Reformed.
“To state the syllogism,” says Clark, “is to expose the silliness of it.” Perhaps stating the syllogism in such an oversimplified way does give it a ring of “silliness.” But if one reflects carefully on Clark’s own reasoning, it doesn’t appear too far removed from the contours of this syllogism:
Dr. Clark’s argument
1. The 16th and 17th century PB Reformers and Puritans said in essence, “We are Reformed.”
2. They said, “We think x [i.e., The Three Forms of Unity/The Westminster Standards]
3. Therefore, x is “Reformed”
If Dr. Clark and company are entitled to that kind of procedure, why not Reformed Baptists?
A Reformed Baptist argument
1. The 20th century Credo-Baptist adherents of the 1689 Confession (granddaughter to the WCF and daughter to the Savoy Declaration) said in essence, “We are not simply Reformed; we are Reformed Baptist.”
2. They said, “We think x [i.e., The Second London Baptist Confession]
3. Therefore, x is “Reformed Baptist.”
Formally, what we did is precisely the same procedure that forms the basis of Clark’s claim to property rights on the singular adjective “Reformed.” We neither claimed “We are reformed” (major premise) nor “Therefore, x is Reformed” (minor premise). Instead, we carefully qualified our language. We are not simply “Reformed,” we are “Reformed Baptist.” In doing so, we made the point that “Reformed” is not enough. “Reformed” by itself may find support in the 3FU or the WS, but it is, in our estimation, sub-biblical. Hence, we chose to identify ourselves (without Dr. Clark’s permission) as something other than simply “Reformed”–we are “Reformed Baptist.”
Does Dr. Clark or his denomination have ecclesiastical authority to overturn what the ARBCA churches have done? Can he take them to court for stealing the adjective “Reformed”? Didn’t the PCUSA force Machen’s group to change it’s name? Why doesn’t Clark do the same if he feels like there’s been a copyright infringement?
Truth of the matter is, Dr. Clark doesn’t believe that the Baptist congregations that formed ARBCA are “true churches.” He expresses his perspective as follows:
We would discipline someone if they left OURC [Oceanside United Reformed Church] and began attending a baptistic congregation or a sect…. I don’t think that any congregation that denies the administration of baptism to covenant children can be a true church. I don’t see how any baptistic congregation is practicing the “pure administration” of the sacraments.
So not only does he insist we not call ourselves “Reformed,” he insists that we stop identifying ourselves as true visible churches of Christ. That leaves us in a very precarious state since, according to one of the Confessions to which Clark subscribes, there is “no ordinary possibility of salvation” outside the visible church (WCF 25.1).
So what do you think? May Baptists use the adjective “Reformed”? Does it really matter? And what do you think about Dr. Clark “de-churching” Baptist congregations? Before answering those questions, you may want to see how these questions are being discussed and debated on the various blog sites below:
R. Scott Clark and “Reformed” by Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog
Follow up on R. Scott Clark and “Reformed” by Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog
Post-Thanksgiving Cartoons: Reply to James White by Dr. R. Scott Clark of The Heidelblog (be sure to read through the comments)
The esse of Reformed: A Current Question by Dr. Michael Haykin of The Andrew Fuller Center of Baptist Studies
Why I Call Myself a Reformed Baptist by Pastor Keith Throop of The Reformed Baptist Blog
James White Blog Concerning Statements of R. Scott Clark on the Puritan Board
Baptist Churches Not True Churches on the Puritan Board
What Does It Mean to Be Reformed on the Puritan Board
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
Posted by deangonzales on July 30, 2009
In the 17th century, certain sects of Christendom, such as the Quakers and Anabaptists, denied the legitimacy of taking oaths or making vows. The teaching of this chapter of the confession was designed to clarify the meaning and confirm the lawfulness of oaths and vows when properly used. The 1689 Baptist Confession retains the substance of the Westminster Confession, but it abbreviates the form.
I. Concerning Lawful Oaths (para. 1 thru 4)
A. The nature of a lawful oath (para. 1)
A lawful oath is a part of religious worship, wherein the person swearing in truth, righteousness, and judgement, solemnly calleth God to witness what he sweareth, and to judge him according to the truth or falseness thereof.
The first paragraph describes the nature of an oath. An oath is a solemn promise made to another party in which God is called upon to act as a witness and judge. There are two kinds of oaths. An assertory oath is used to confirm the truthfulness and reliability of one’s testimony. This type of oath is often used in the courtroom setting. A promissory oath is used to confirm one’s intent to fulfill an obligation or promise. This type of oath is often used by those assuming some public office or a contractual obligation, like marriage. Traditionally, oaths have been viewed as religious in nature since God is evoked as a witness. In modern times, however, oaths have begun to lose their religious character with the increase of secularism.
The Bible contains numerous examples of oaths. Sometimes civil or religious authorities would require an individual or community to confirm a plea of innocence with an oath when suspected or accused of a crime (Exo. 22:10, 11; Lev. 5:1; 6:3; Num. 5:11-28; Matt. 26:63, 64). Oaths were also employed to confirm one’s fidelity to his covenantal commitments and responsibilities (1 Kgs. 2:43; Eccl. 8:2; Heb. 6:16, 17). Oaths often included such verbal formulas as “I swear by God” (1 Sam. 30:15; Neh. 13:25), “God is witness between you and me” (Gen. 31:50; 1Sam. 12:5; 2 Cor. 1:23; Phil. 1:8), “As the Lord lives” (1 Sam. 14:39; 19:6; 20:3; 2 Sam. 15:21), or “May the Lord do so to me if I do not …” (Ruth 1:17; 1 Sam. 3:17; 14:44; 2 Sam. 3:35; 1 Kgs. 2:23). Oaths were also often accompanied by physical gestures, such as raising one’s right hand heavenward (Deut. 32:40; Ps. 106:26; Isa. 62:8; Dan. 12:7; Rev. 10:5, 6) or, less commonly, placing one’s hand under another’s thigh (Gen. 24:2; 47:29). In modern times, the adjured raises his right hand or places it upon a Bible and swears to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help [him] God.”
B. The propriety of a lawful oath (para. 2)
The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear; and therein it is to be used, with all holy fear and reverence; therefore to swear vainly or rashly by that glorious and dreadful name, or to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred; yet as in matter of weight and moment, for confirmation of truth, and ending all strife, an oath is warranted by the word of God; so a lawful oath being imposed by lawful authority in such matters, ought to be taken.
Having briefly described the nature of an oath, the Confession defends the propriety of lawful oaths in the second paragraph. First, “sinful” oaths are identified and condemned. Idolatrous oaths are those in which invoke any one or thing except the one true God as witness (Jos. 23:7; Jer. 5:7; Zeph. 1:5). Vain oaths are those taken flippantly for trivial matters or with the intent to deceive (Exo. 20:7; Matt. 23:16-22). Rash oaths are those taken in haste without proper forethought or solemnity (Num. 30:6; Eccl. 5:2-5). All such oaths are forbidden and condemned by Scripture (Exo. 20:7; Deut. 6:13; Jer. 5:7; Matt. 5:33-37). Especially strong is Christ’s censure in the Sermon on the Mount:
Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, “You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.” But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your “Yes” be “Yes,” and your “No,” “No.” For whatever is more than these is from the evil one (Matt. 5:33-37).
Because Quakers and some Anabaptists frequently cited this censure, which is repeated by the Apostle James (5:12), the Puritans felt constrained to defend the propriety of lawful oaths in the second half of this paragraph. They affirmed that, in certain circumstances, “an oath is warranted by the word of God.” In fact, the Puritans not only viewed lawful oaths as appropriate but also as mandatory when imposed by a lawful authority. The Scripture offers the following support for lawful oaths:
1. The commands to swear in Jehovah’s name and the prohibitions against swearing falsely assume the propriety of lawful oaths (Exo. 20:7; Lev. 19:12; Deut. 6:13; 10:20).
2. The Mosaic law sometimes required the swearing of an oath (Exo. 22:10, 11; Lev. 5:1; 6:3; Num. 5:19-22; 1 Kgs. 8:31).
3. The example of many OT saints vindicates the use of lawful oaths: Abraham (Gen. 24:2); Jacob (Gen. 47:30-31); Joseph (Gen. 50:25); Elijah (1 Kgs. 17:1); Nehemiah (Neh. 5:12; 13:25); and Ezra (Ezra 10:5).
4. The example of Christ and the Apostle Paul vindicate the use of lawful oaths (Matt. 26:62-64; Rom. 1:9; 2 Cor. 1:23; Phil. 1:8).
5. The example of God Himself vindicates the use of lawful oaths (Gen. 22:16; Num. 14:28; Deut. 32:40; Ps. 95:11; Jer. 22:5; Amos 6:8; 8:7; Luke 1:73; Heb. 6:13-17).
But if lawful oaths are appropriate, then why does Jesus say, “Do not swear at all” (Matt. 5:34)? Why does He say, “Let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one” (Matt. 5:37)?
In light of the ample biblical support for lawful oaths, we must not interpret Christ’s censure as an absolute prohibition against all oaths. Rather, as indicated by the context, Jesus is condemning Pharisaic casuistry and misuse of the Law. The Pharisees took the OT command “do not swear falsely, but perform [one’s] oaths to the Lord,” and they shifted the emphasis from the integrity of the oath to the formula of the oath. No longer was the emphasis upon keeping one’s promise, but now it was on the phrase “to the Lord.” As a result, the Pharisees concluded that one might break his oath provided that he did not swear by the Lord. In fact, they devoted an entire book to distinguish between the kinds of oaths that could be broken and those that were obligatory (cf. Matt. 23:16-22)! Thus, Jesus’ censure was not against lawful oath-taking but against sinful oath-taking.
C. The solemnity of a lawful oath (para. 3)
The third paragraph underscores the solemnity of oath-taking. Oaths should only be taken when required by a lawful authority or when circumstances demand it. The Baptists added a closing phrase, which highlights the consequences of sinful oath taking—God’s anger is provoked and society suffers. But Baptists also omitted a significant section of the WCF, which they apparently felt was sufficiently addressed elsewhere in the chapter.
Whosoever taketh an oath warranted by the Word of God, ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he knoweth to be truth; [WCF- neither may any man bind himself by oath to anything but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform. Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching anything that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority]; for that by rash, false, and vain oaths, the Lord is provoked, and for them this land mourns.
D. The sincerity of a lawful oath (para. 4)
An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation or mental reservation.1 [WCF- ‘It cannot oblige to sin; but in anything not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man’s own hurt. Nor is it to be violated, although made to heretics, or infidels.’]
The fourth paragraph addresses the need for absolute integrity in oath-taking. As pointed out earlier, some of the Pharisees were “spinsters.” They were experts at twisting the meaning of words and phrases (Matt. 5:33-37; 23:16-22). But such dishonest “word games” were not limited to Jesus’ day. Today, an American president can justify perjury because he intended something different than his interrogator when he used the word “is.” Liberal pastors and theologians can confess adherence to evangelical doctrinal standards after they “reinterpret” such words and phrases as “inspiration,” “deity of Christ,” “virgin birth,” “resurrection,” etc. Taxpayers can justify “fudging” on their tax return form on the basis of a loose interpretation of the phrase “to the best of my knowledge and belief.” This is precisely the kind of dishonest casuistry censured by this paragraph and forbidden by Scripture (Lev. 19:12; Matt. 5:34-36). As G. I. Williamson appropriately remarks, “The taking of an oath with secret intention of double meaning, not disclosed to others, or with mental reservations, whereby the mind silently voices dissent from part or all of what is being sworn, is a sin of enormity.” That is because the Bible commends absolute honesty and fidelity (Ps. 24:4; Matt. 5:37; Jas. 5:12).
The WCF includes some important qualifying and clarifying remarks, not included the Baptist Confession. First, an oath to do something sinful is non-binding. For example, an individual might wrongly swear allegiance to an apostate church. Later he is converted and realizes his error. In such a case, he not only may, but he must break that oath. A. A. Hodge notes that in such a case, “The sin is in taking the oath to do the unlawful thing, not in breaking it.” One might add that breaking an oath that leads to sin is act of obedience.
On the other hand, the WCF indicates that oaths resulting in personal loss or inconvenience are not to be broken. The righteous man “swears to his own hurt and does not change” (Ps. 15:4). In the spring of 1992, I made a commitment to serve another year as a Graduate Assistant teaching Greek at the university I attended. Just prior to the school year I realized I would have to use a good portion of my savings to supplement our living expenses and regretted the commitment I had made. However, to resign my post would place the university in a difficult position. In light of Psalm 15:4, I decided it would be better for me to suffer loss than to break my word.
The WCF also addresses the issue of oaths made to heretics or infidels. Historically, the Roman Catholic Church had justified the practice of breaking oaths to those judged to be heretics or infidels. One of the most notorious examples was the case of Bohemian Reformer Jan Hus. In 1414 the Emperor Sigismund invited Hus to a council in Constance and promised him safe conduct. But the Catholic authorities arrested and imprisoned Hus. Under pressure from the Church, the emperor informed Hus that he was not bound to keep his promise of safe conduct since Hus was a heretic. The Puritans rightly condemned such deceptive behavior. They commended the virtuous example of Joshua, who kept his oath with the Gibeonites though they had deceived him into making the oath (Jos. 9:1-20).
II. Concerning Lawful Vows (para. 5)
A vow, which is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone, [WCF- and that it may be accepted, it] is to be made and performed [WCF- voluntarily] with all religious care and faithfulness; but popish monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself.
The English terms “oath” and “vow” are sometimes used interchangeably. But the Old and New Testaments employ distinct vocabulary for each concept. Though oaths and vows are clearly related (cf. Num. 30:2), an oath refers to a promise made in God’s presence to another human party; whereas a vow refers to a promise made directly to God. The vows in Scripture often included both a negative and also a positive pledge. Negatively, the individual promised to abstain from some liberty, comfort, or necessity for a period of time. For example, the Nazarite promised to abstain from grape products, cutting his hair, and touching anything dead (Num. 6:2-8; Jud. 13:5-7; cf. Num. 30:3ff.). David vowed to give himself no rest until he had found a resting place for the Ark (Ps. 132:2-5). Positively, the individual pledged his (or another’s) time, energies, and/or resources to God’s service. Jepthah vowed to sacrifice the first living thing from his home that greeted him should God grant him victory in battle (Judg. 11:30, 31). Hannah vowed to dedicate Samuel to God’s service (1 Sam. 1:11, 27, 28). As these examples demonstrate, vows were often conditioned upon God’s answering prayer (cf. Gen. 28:20-22). In other cases, vows were offered as a thankful response to prayers already answered (Pss. 22:25; 50:14; 116:14-19).
Since vows are closely related to oaths (cf. Num. 30:2), much of the Confession’s teaching concerning the latter would also apply to the former. This may be the reason why the Baptist’s abbreviated three of the WCF’s paragraphs into one paragraph. Monastic vows were one issue the Baptists did judge worthy of reiteration. These included vows of celibacy, poverty, and unquestioned submission to the Church. Since all these practices are unbiblical, the Puritans rightly viewed such vows as “superstitious and sinful snares,” and as a result, non-binding.
Closing applications
(1) Oaths are not only valid, but when wisely and solemnly employed, they can bring glory to God and promote good among men.
In light of the potential dangers of oaths, we might be tempted to avoid them altogether. There are times, however, when oaths are prudent and necessary. According to Scripture, a properly taken oath glorifies God (Deut. 10:20-21). By taking an oath in God’s name we publicly confess our faith in the one true God who is omniscient, omnipresent, and just. Furthermore, oaths have the potential to promote good among men. Jochem Douma explains,
A society that respects the oath is not easily disrupted. In this kind of society, people still recoil from lying and expend energy in taking their office or calling seriously. An oath-bound monarch is bound by the rights of his subjects that have been established in the constitution, so that his administration does not exercise tyranny. Oath-bound physicians are committed to healing their patients. An oath-bound officer serves the preservation of the state. An oath-bound property assessor can be expected to estimate property value honestly. By means of an oath in court, witnesses are restrained from declaring the innocent to be guilty, or the guilty to be innocent. By means of the oath, we are placed before the very face of God. Reverence for God has salutary consequences for society.
It might be added that reverent oath taking can have salutary consequences for the church in settling unresolved interpersonal strife or conflict.
(2) The Bible and Confession require absolute honesty and unflinching commitment from those employ oaths and vows, especially those in positions of leadership.
Those of us who have taken wedding vows or pledged commitment to a local church need to reflect upon the high demands under which we have placed ourselves. Too often, professing Christians quietly qualify their promises with all sorts of secret conditions and provisos. As a result, the marriage vow or church covenant loses much of its binding force. Christian leaders also need to take seriously their ministerial oaths and vows. Too often in our day, pastors and theologians publicly vow allegiance to a Confession of Faith while secretly at variance with substantial doctrines in that confession. This kind of behavior is unethical and irreprehensible among those who should be models of integrity. “It is little wonder,” writes G. I. Williamson, “that the spiritual condition of the churches is low, when it has become accepted practice to swear deceitfully, and that on the part of the shepherds of Israel.” If a minister takes exception with a doctrine or teaching of the confession he vows to uphold, he should make his church aware of his exception(s).
(3) The high ethical demands of oaths and vows should caution us against the practice of pressuring small children to make unwarranted or untimely pledges to God.
It’s common practice among evangelical churches today to pressure small children into making pledges of commitment to Christian service. Sometimes young children are encouraged to sign a pledge card or publicly to dedicate their lives to “fulltime” Christian service. As the child grows, his family and friends, as well as his own conscience remind him of this pledge. As a result, he may struggle with feelings of guilt at the thought of pursuing a secular vocation. This practice not only betrays a false view of “fulltime” Christian service, but it also reflects a lack of wisdom among those who pressure children into these formal pledges. Since oaths and vows should not be made lightly or rashly, we must be sure that those upon whom we call to make them are mentally and spiritually able to understand and fulfill the commitment they are making.
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
Posted by deangonzales on July 22, 2008
The Value of a Confession of Faith
In pointing out the value of a confession, we are in reality presenting another argument for it. According to the Apostle Paul, God has ordained that the church be the “pillar and support of the truth” (1Tim. 3:15). This does not mean that Scripture’s authenticity or authority depends upon the church, as Rome claims. On the contrary, self-attesting and self-authenticating God-breathed Scripture can stand on its own two legs! Albert Barnes better captures the intent of Paul when he summarizes the apostle as teaching that the church “is entrusted with the business of maintaining the truth, of defending it from the assaults of error, and of transmitting it to future times.”[1] We believe a confession of faith is of great value in assisting the church to carry out this multifaceted task.
I. A Confession of Faith Provides a Standard for Church Membership and Inter-church Fellowship.
If two are to walk together, they must be agreed (Amos 3:3). True fellowship and harmony exists when God’s people are of “one mind” (1 Cor. 1:10; Phil. 2:1-4). The “unity of the Spirit” will not be achieved apart from the “unity of the faith,” which means doctrinal agreement (Eph. 4:3, 13). Ideally, the more agreement, the better! The ecumenical notion that doctrine divides is an unbiblical notion. The Southern Baptist theologian B. H. Carroll is on target when he writes,
A church with a little creed is a church with little life. The more divine doctrines a church can agree upon, the greater the power, and the wider its usefulness. The fewer its articles of faith, the fewer its bonds of union and compactness. The modern cry, ‘Less creed and more liberty,’ is a degeneration from the vertebrate to the jellyfish, and means less unity and less morality, and it means more heresy.[2]
Thus a substantial amount of doctrinal agreement is necessary for biblical unity. A confession of faith can be a helpful tool in achieving this unity. In the first place, a Confession provides a written doctrinal standard by which potential members may be admitted into the church. Churches that do not have confessions or that do not consult the one they possess are more liable to admit the wrong kind of people into the church. Often, they will admit individuals into the church on the basis of a mere confession that the Bible is God’s word or that Jesus is the Savior. But this is not a sufficient standard for membership since even cultists profess such convictions. Such a loose practice leaves the church vulnerable to division and heresy (1 Cor. 1:10-11; Jude 4). For, as Jesus reminds us, “A house divided against itself shall not stand” (Matt. 12:25b).
On the other hand, a full-orbed confession of faith provides a doctrinal standard that will promote a greater degree of unity within the membership of the church. At a minimum, those permitted into membership should be in full agreement with what are judged to be the essentials of the faith and in substantial agreement with the remaining doctrines that are judged to be necessary for the well-being of the church. Furthermore, there should be a submissive and teachable attitude towards the Confession, as well as the policies and practices of the church.
Secondly, a confession can also provide a doctrinal standard for inter-church fellowship and cooperation. Christ never intended local churches to stand alone. One local church cannot carry out the Great Commission by itself. Instead, it should unite together with other like-minded churches to carry out such cooperative efforts as benevolence, evangelism, missions, ministerial training, and the publication of Christian literature (Acts 15; 2 Cor. 8:18-24; Gal. 1:2, 22; Col. 4:13-18). In a day when denominations and cults abound, substantial doctrinal agreement is a must if such cooperative efforts are to be healthy and productive. As Robert Lewis Dabney has remarked,
As man’s mind is notoriously fallible, and professed Christians who claim to hold the Scripture, as they understand them, differ from each other notoriously, some platform for union and cooperation must be adopted, by which those who believe they are truly agreed may stand and work together.[3]
II. A Confession of Faith Provides a Standard Church Discipline and for Defending the Faith.
The Scottish theologian James Bannerman notes, “Had the adoption of confessions and creeds not been a duty laid upon the Church by a regard to her own members, it would have been a necessity laid upon the Church by a regard to those not her members, but her enemies.”[4] In other words, the church is called not only to maintain the truth, but also to defend it from error. Jude, the “bondservant [and half-brother] of Jesus Christ, and brother of James,” underscores this point in his epistle:
Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints (Jude 3).
The Greek word translated “contend” denotes an intense struggle or fight.[5] It is a battle waged for “the faith once for all handed down to the saints,” that is, the body of divinely revealed truth, which we now possess in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. In this case, our enemy consists of those who pervert the truth, reject authority, cause divisions, and live ungodly lives (vv. 4-19). According to Jude, such individuals “have crept in [and may creep in today] unnoticed” (v. 4). As a result, God’s people must contend for the faith. The present tense suggests the need for an ongoing struggle until the end of the age.[6]
Historically, creeds have been the weapons forged by the church from the Scriptures used to wage this ongoing war. As the passage above and several others demonstrate, the battle began in the apostolic church. As heresy attacked the church from within and without, the church responded with doctrinal formulations, which may be viewed as the beginning of creeds. For example, the Jerusalem council formulated and published certain dogmas designed to protect the churches against the heresy of the Judaizers (Acts 15:1-30). Paul confronted a denial of the resurrection with an elaborate defense and exposition of the doctrine (1 Cor. 15; cf. 1 Tim. 1:19-20; 2:17-18). And John fortified the church against the attacks of incipient Gnosticism[7] with an apologetic for Christ’s full humanity (1 John 1:1-3; 4:1-6; 5:1-6).
The early church continued the polemic and responded to various Christological heresies with such confessional formulas as the Nicene Creed, the Chalcedonian Creed, and the so-called Athanasian Creed.[8] In time, the doctrinal decay and corruption of the Roman church provoked reformers like Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, and John Calvin to defend the faith. The many creeds, confessions, and catechisms that grew out of the Reformation bear witness to that defense.[9]
Unfortunately, the ecumenism of our day has blinded many churches and denominations to the biblical duty of defending the faith. Consequently, most modern creeds require a minimal amount of doctrinal homogeneity and allow for a great amount of doctrinal diversity. Such an approach not only rejects the church’s duty to expose and refute error, but it misses one of the primary functions of a creed. Concerning this modern approach to creeds, J. Gresham Machen remarked in the early part of the twentieth century,
The historic creeds were exclusive of error; they were intended to set forth the biblical teaching in sharp contrast with what was opposed to the biblical teaching, in order that the purity of the church might be preserved. These modern statements, on the contrary, are inclusive of error. They are designed to make room in the church for just as many people and for just as many types of thought as possible.[10]
We must resist this modern over-emphasis on doctrinal latitude. God’s people should not embrace deviant forms of doctrine, but they should reject them. We are explicitly warned, “Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings” (Heb. 13:9). Again, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out in to the world” (1 John 4:1). One of the ways that we can test the spirits is to compare their views of Scripture with the tried and proven creeds of historic Christianity. A good creed or confession of faith will serve as a check to prevent the church from too hastily adopting doctrines that are novel and that deviate from mainstream Christian thought. As Kenneth Gentry argues, “Creeds help to preserve the essential core of true Christian faith from generation to generation.”[11] And in light of the ongoing assault of error and heresy, the church should not only continue to use the proven creeds of past generations, but she should also formulate newer creedal statements that address the specific errors of our day.[12]
III. A Confession of Faith Provides a Summary of Biblical Doctrine for Evangelism and Education.
Prior to his ascension, the Lord Jesus Christ commissioned the eleven apostles with the awesome task of making disciples and then of teaching them everything that he had commanded (Matt. 28:19-20). The Apostle Paul also received this commission, and he endeavored to fulfill it by faithfully teaching God’s people “the whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:18-27). This same commission has been passed on to the church to carry out until the end of the age.[13] Yet, as one writer has noted, the overwhelming volume of biblical truth makes this quite a formidable task. The Bible consists of 66 books divided into 1,189 chapters containing over 700,000 words. It would be impossible either to convey or to comprehend all of that huge mass of truth at once. Consequently, it becomes necessary for the church to isolate the most basic and fundamental truths, and then to systematize them in summary form so that they can be easily taught and easily learned.[14]
Historically, this has been one of the functions of a creed.[15] Creeds or confessions of faith are comprehensive, yet concise summaries of biblical doctrine. Like good sermons or Christian literature, they distill gospel truth in expository form. Moreover, their accuracy is enhanced since they are usually the product of many minds. As Proverbs 11:14 reminds us, “In the multitude of counselors there is much safety.” This makes creeds and confessions valuable aids to assist the church in carrying out its commission.
Not surprisingly, this is the reason Charles Spurgeon gave for reprinting the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. In the second year of his ministry at New Park Street Chapel, Spurgeon gave these prefatory remarks to the republication of the Confession:
I have thought it right to reprint in cheap form this excellent list of doctrines, which were subscribed to by the Baptist Ministers in the year 1689. We need a banner because of the truth; it may be that this small volume may aid the cause of the glorious gospel by testifying plainly what are its leading doctrines….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.[16]
We concur with Spurgeon that a confession of faith can be a valuable summary of that glorious gospel truth, which is contained in God’s word.
Conclusion
Those who oppose the use of creeds or confessions can sound quite pious. One anti-creedal publication, for example, makes the following assertion, “To arrive at truth we must dismiss religious prejudices from heart to mind. We must let God speak for himself…. To let God be true means to let God have the say as to what is the truth that sets men free. It means to accept his word, the Bible, as the truth. Our appeal is to the Bible for truth.” The same publication goes on to attack creeds as “man-made traditions,” “the precepts of men,” and human “opinions.”[17]
That approach to creeds may sound more biblical than my attempt to defend them. Once it is discovered, however, that those words are drawn from a Jehovah’s Witness publication, the biblical sounding veneer is removed. “No creed but the Bible” has never been the historical position of orthodoxy. Rather it has often been the pious cloak of heretics, cultists, and modernists.[18] Unfortunately, some Christians have failed to see this, and have rallied against creeds. My goal in these studies has been to insure that we don’t make that mistake. My aim has been to persuade you of the validity and value of confessions of faith. I hope I’ve succeeded!
[1] Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament (reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1962), 1142.
[2] Colossians, Ephesians and Hebrews in An Interpretation of the English Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), 140, quoted by Robert Martin in A Modern Exposition of the 1689, 16.
[3] Quoted by Kenneth Gentry, “In Defense of Creedalism,” Penpoint, vol. 9, no. 4 (December 1998).
[4] James Bannerman, The Church of Christ (reprint, Still Waters Revival Books, 1991), 1:301.
[5] The word is epagonidzomai, which is the intensified form of the Greek verb from which we derive the English verb, “to agonize.” The more common form of the word, agonidzomai, “was much used in connection with athletic contests to describe a strenuous struggle to overcome an opponent, as in a wrestling match.” D. Edmond Hiebert, Second Peter and Jude (Greenville: Unusual Publications, 1989), 218.
[6] Ibid, 218-19.
[7] Because Gnostics viewed matter has inherently evil, they denied that Christ had a material body, thus denying his full humanity. This view has also been called “Docetism,” from the Greek verb dokeo, “to appear.” They argued that Jesus only appeared to have a body.
[8] Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 1:24-42; Cf. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology (reprint, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1983), 115-19.
[9] Schaff, 1:203-813.
[10] “Creeds and Doctrinal Advance,” Banner of Truth (November 1970), quoted in A Modern Exposition of the 1689, 21.
[11] Gentry, “In Defense of Creedalism.”
[12] One example of a modern error is so-called evangelical feminism, which is simply an attempt to ‘baptize’ secular feminism and bring it into the church. This is a serious error, in my estimation, and it calls for a creedal response from the church. The “Danvers Statement” is one such a response. Several leading evangelicals who were members of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood prepared the statement and further articulated their position in a book edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem, entitled, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1991). More recently, the Southern Baptist Convention also responded to feminism by revising their 1963 version of The Baptist Faith and Message to include an article on “The Family” (Revised June 9, 1998). I would like to see Reformed Baptist churches append a similar statement to the 1689.
[13] The fact that Christ promises His special presence “until the end of the age” proves that the commission was intended to extend beyond the life span of the eleven apostles.
[14] Gentry, “In Defense of Creedalism.”
[15] Schaff, 1:8.
[16] Quoted in the forward to The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, 7-8.
[17] Quoted by Gentry, 1.
[18] It should be no surprise that the Northern Baptist Convention opened the door wide for modernism when it voted to reject Riley’s motion to adopt the New Hampshire Confession and rather to approve Woelfkin’s proposal that “the New Testament is the all-sufficient ground of our faith and practice.” That denomination has since become apostate. See Beale, In Pursuit of Purity, 171-229.
