In Defense of Creedalism
Dr.
Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
We live in a
non-creedal age. By and large conservative Christians diminish the importance of
creeds and confessions of faith. As a matter of fact, many non-creedalists do
not simply dismiss creeds as unimportant for maintaining biblical Christianity,
they decry them as positively antithetical to it. Such a position is not simply
“non-creedal,” but rather “anti-creedal.”
Many factors are at
work generating this anti-creedal sentiment today. Among these we may list the
following: an increasing permeation of
society with a relativistic, existential concern for the moment; a loss of a
sense of the significance of history; a democratic concern for non-coercion and
individual freedom of belief; a pervasive tendency to simplification, as well
as other considerations. But at the forefront of the widespread fundamentalist
disapprobation of creeds is the fear that the framing of creeds undermines the
sufficiency of Scripture. The cry “no creed but the Bible” appears to re-assert
the primacy of the Bible in religious affairs in such a way as to totally
discredit creedalism.
In one book
leveling a critical assault on creedalism we find the following statement: “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 writer spurns creeds as “man-made
traditions,” “the precepts of men,” and “opinions.”
These sentiments
well represent many anti-creedalists, especially those within fundamentalist
circles. The fundamentalist view of creeds is important for two reasons.
Fundamentalism is not only one of the dominant forces in American Christianity
today, but is also the spiritual blood-sister of Reformed Christianity. Consequently,
conservative Reformed Christians ought to have a proper understanding of the
status and role of creeds in order to defend the biblical integrity of their
faith.
This brief study
will introduce two particular aspects of creedalism: (1) The relation of creed
to Scripture, and (2) The function of creeds in Christianity.
At the very outset
of the discussion it is imperative to recognize that creedal standards are not
independent assertions of truth. Nor are they truth claims on a par with
Scripture. Creeds are derived from and subordinate to the Bible. The Bible is
the only source and standard of Christian truth since it is the infallible, inerrant
Word of the Living God.
Understanding the
original meaning of the word “creed” may be helpful for dispelling some
anti-creedal concerns. The English word creed
is derived from the Latin credo, which
simply means: “I believe.” A creed, then, is a statement of faith. As such, a
creed no more diminishes the authority of God’s Word than do statements such as
“I believe in God” or “I believe in the resurrection of Christ.” As a matter of
fact, such statements are creeds¾albeit, brief ones. Anyone who thinks of God
in a particular way has “encreeded” a view of God, whether or not he reduces
this “creed” to writing. Surely this in no way diminishes the primacy or the
centrality of the Bible.
Furthermore, some
argue that a creed reduces the authority of the Bible by implying its
inadequacy. They ask why we need a creed if we have the Bible. If such a
concern were valid, we could argue with equal force that a minister’s sermonic
exposition of Christ’s words implies that Christ’s words are inadequate as they
stand. Such is patently false.
Those who fault
Presbyterian subscription to the Westminster Standards (or the subscription of
Congregationalists and Baptists to closely related Standards) should be made to
realize that the Westminster Confession is self-consciously derived from and
subordinate to the Bible. It not only amply demonstrates and vigorously
maintains its utter dependence upon Scripture in its opening chapter, but it
allows—in fact, encourages—appeal
from itself to its authority, the Bible.
Witness paragraphs four and ten from its initial chapter:
“The authority of
the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth
not upon the testimony of any man, or Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth
itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is
the Word of God.” (WCF 1:4)
“The supreme judge,
by which all controversies of religion arc to be determined, and all decrees of
councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits,
are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but
the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.” (WCF 1:10)
Furthermore, at WCF
31:3 the Confession speaks of the subordinate authority of all ecclesiastical
creeds. Such creedal formulations are to
be heeded only—if consonant with the Word of God. Thus, the Westminster
Confession of Faith, as a proper creed, actually vouchsafes the supreme,
unparalleled authority of Scripture.
Certainly no law in
Scripture explicitly commands “Thou shalt frame creeds.” Nevertheless, the
impetus and mandate for creeds derives from good and necessary inferences
deduced from Scripture. We can demonstrate this in a variety of ways, three of
which will suffice for our present purpose.
First, the biblical call for a public affirmation
of faith serves as the prime impetus to creedalism. The essence of
Christian duty is to be a witness (Acts 1:8). This requires publicly defining
the exact identity of that to which the Christian is witness. Obviously
reciting the entire Scripture record at a given opportunity of witness is not
possible. Furthermore, only God can look into the hearts of individuals to
ascertain their innermost faith (1 Sam. 16:7; Luke 16:15). Thus, for others to
know of an individual's personal faith it is necessary to put it into words.
“With the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he
confesses, resulting in salvation” (Rom. 10:10). Hence, the necessity of a
creed in defining the content of belief.
Second, mini-creeds are preserved in the biblical
record of apostolic Christianity itself. The very seeds of a full-blown
creedalism are sown in the apostolic era via terse statements of faith which
are widely employed. Perhaps the most familiar of these rudimentary creeds is
the recurring one embedded in such texts as Acts 10:36; Romans 10:9; 1
Corinthians 12:3; and Philippians 2:11: “Jesus is Lord.” This eminently
important statement embodies—“encreeds,” if you will—a particular way of
viewing Jesus Christ. It is fundamentally necessary to hold as one’s credo: “I believe Jesus is Lord.”
Third, within the
biblical record we find early ecclesiastical assemblies re-casting already
known truths to ensure their accurate preservation and transmission. Acts 15
is the locus classicus in this regard. There the Church restates “justification
by faith” in response to a Christian-Pharisaic pressure demanding the
circumcision of Gentile converts (cf. Acts 15:1).
After noting
several such situations in Scripture, nineteenth-century Scottish Presbyterian
theologian James Bannerman observes:
“Such, within the age of inspiration itself, are the remarkable examples
we have of the necessity, growing out of the circumstances of the Church and
its members, that arose at different times for recasting the doctrines of
Scripture in a new mold, and exhibiting or explaining it afresh under forms of
language and expression more precisely fitted to meet and counteract the error
of the times.”
Thus the concept of
creedalism is a Scriptural one that in no way diminishes the authority of
Scripture or implies its inadequacy.
The above study
intimates a variety of creedal functions. The following enumeration and
explication of six important functions of creeds will focus on their
specifically ecclesiastical functions. Broader socio-cultural implications flow
forth from creedalism, but these are beyond the purview of the present study
(see: R. J. Rushdoony, The Foundations of
Social Order).
First, creeds serve as a basis for ecclesiastical
fellowship and labor. Whenever two walk together they must be agreed (Amos
3:3) for a “house divided against itself cannot stand” (Matt 12.25). Community
labors are better performed and “body life” is more consistently maintained
within that church which possesses a homogeneity of faith. And it is imperative
that the particular content of that fundamental faith be known, as in a written
creed.
Non-creedal
fundamentalism is both internally inconsistent at the theoretical level and
seriously endangered at the practical level. Its theoretical inconsistency is
manifest in the internal contradiction of the very statement “no creed but the
Bible.” This statement itself is a creed.
It says, in effect: “I believe (credo) in no creed.” That is, “My creed
is that there be no creed.” Furthermore, this theoretical position is not
amenable to practice. Even the notoriously anti-creedal Church of Christ denomination
requires some sort of implied statement of belief from persons seeking
positions of authority in its fellowship.
A paedo-baptist, or a Five Point Calvinist will simply never be allowed
in its ministry.
Ironically,
non-creedalism possesses inherent dangers in that in principle such a position
allows almost any doctrine into a church. The anti-creedal quotations in the
third paragraph of this study are pious sounding and widely representative of
many churches. Unfortunately, the statements are drawn from Let God Be True, a publication of the
Jehovah’s Witnesses. The essence of the citation could well be reduced to: “No
creed but the Bible.” Yet despite the Jehovah’s Witnesses’s adoption of the
same principle (no creed) and the same authority (the Bible), they are
unacceptable to orthodox churches. Obviously there is more to orthodoxy than the
claim “no creed but the Bible.” And once you go beyond “no creed but the Bible”
to probe one’s faith you are thereby establishing a creed, a statement of
faith.
Southern
Presbyterian theologian Robert L. Dabney aptly comments: “As man’s mind is
notoriously fallible, and professed Christians who claim to hold the
Scriptures, 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.” Churches absolutely must
provide a formal, public affirmation of their faith so their members and
prospective members may know exactly where they stand. This is the function of
a creed.
Second, creeds serve as tools of Christian
education. Obviously the sheer volume of the Bible (1,189 chapters
containing over 773,000 words) forbids its full comprehension in a moment and
by every Christian—or even by one supremely gifted believer in an entire
lifetime. Nevertheless, God commands his people in the Old Testament Shema (Deut 6:4-25) and in the New
Testament Great Commission (Matt. 28.19-20) to teach the Bible’s truth to
others. This teaching process necessarily deals with fundamental, selected
truths at first --- truths such as outlined and organized in a creed.
A growing
understanding of the Bible comes only through reading it, systematizing it,
studying it, hearing it expounded, and applying it. Nineteenth century
Presbyterian theologian A. A. Hodge notes in his defense of creeds: ‘While . .
. the Scriptures are from God, the understanding of them belongs to the part of
men. Men must interpret to the best of their ability each particular part of
the Scripture separately, and then combine all that the Scripture teaches upon
different subjects in mutual consistency as parts of a harmonious system.” In
short, creeds are simply expository distillations of Scripture. They summarily
state the most basic themes of Scripture in order to facilitate education in
them.
If a brief
expository summation of the teachings of the Bible is acceptable to evangelical
Christians, then creeds are legitimatized in that they fulfil that precise
function. In this respect, creeds differ from doctrinal sermons only in being
more exact and being more carefully compiled by several minds. Once a church
encourages public teaching of the Word or publishes literature explaining it,
that church has in fact made a creedal statement.
Third, creeds provide an objective, concrete
standard of church discipline. As noted previously any church having
officers or teachers must require their accepting the standard of belief of
that church. The position “no creed but the Bible” cannot and does not serve as
a standard in any church. The fact that cultists are debarred from service in
orthodox churches illustrates a creed of sorts exists.
If a church has any
interpretation at all of any part of the Bible that must be held by its
officers, then ipso facto it has a
creed—even if it is unwritten. But an unwritten creed serving as a standard of
discipline in such circumstances is both dishonest and dangerous. Surely it is
far more open and honest to have a stable, clearly worded, publicly
recognizable standard of belief. Then appeal can be made to this standard in
situations where men are either debarred from entering the ministry or from
joining a church, or are forcibly relinquished of their duties or membership on
a charge of heresy.
A news article
appearing in the November 21, 1980, issue of Christianity Today documents in a slightly different setting the
danger of the disavowal of creedal discipline. The article reports that a
particular church-related college had been embroiled in a controversy over a
certain teacher’s instruction in a human sexuality course. The reporter
perceptively notes in passing: “Faculty are not required to sign a doctrinal
statement, mostly because of long-standing opposition to creeds.” The absence
of subscription to a creed was a factor complicating the adjudication of that
controversy. The voluntary subscription to a creedal standard is an effective
tool of church discipline which enhances doctrinal purity by reducing
equivocation on fundamental issues.
Fourth, creeds help to preserve the orthodox
Christian faith in the ongoing Church. Jude 3 exhorts Christians: “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 earnestly contend for the
faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.”
The system of faith
incorporated in the Scriptures, embodied in the Lord Jesus Christ, and revealed
in finality by the apostles is “once for all delivered.” It is unchanging and
unchangeable. That immutable faith must be preserved from generation to
generation. Creeds that are true to Scripture admirably serve to tie
generations of believers together by laying down a specific set of fundamental
truths.
The Scriptures
carefully instruct the Church to preserve the faith. Hebrews 13:9 warns: “Do
not be carried away by varied and strange teachings.” Paul instructs two early
church leaders in this vein. To Timothy he writes: “Retain the standard of
sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in
Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 1:13). He urges Titus carefully to see that an overseer
“hold fast the faithful word which is in accord with the teaching, that he may
be able to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Tit.
1:9).
Although the
special, direct revelation of God ceased and the corpus of Scripture was
finalized in the first century, it still remains necessary for the continuing
Church to interpret and apply the completed revelation. The interpretation and
application of Scripture is a process, not an act. It has required the involvement
of many devout men working through many centuries to systematize, compile, and
disseminate the fundamental truths of Scripture.
The fact that the
truth of Scripture is of no “private interpretation” is a foundational
principle of creedal theology. No interpreter of Scripture works alone; we all
must build on the past labors of godly predecessors. The interpreter or group
of exegetes who agree with the historic, orthodox interpretations of the past
and who find themselves in the mainstream of Christian thought are not suspect.
Rather, the one who presents novel deviations from historic Christendom
deserves careful scrutiny. Creeds help to preserve the essential core of true
Christian faith from generation to generation.
The Apostle Paul
expresses his fear that some within the Corinthian church are in danger of
being “led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ” by
subtle craftiness (2 Cor. 11:3). The same concern must provoke the Church today
to guard the central elements of Christian truth from distortion. In terms of a
creed’s function in this regard, A. A. Hodge remarks that the real question is
not, as often pretended, “between the word of God and the creed of man, but
between the tried and proved faith of the collective body of God’s people, and
the private judgment and the unassisted wisdom of the individual objector.”
Fifth, creeds offer a witness to the truth to those
outside the Church. In many ways the Church is to be the “light of the
world” (Matt 5.14). Various methods are available by which to carry the light
of the truth into the world. The framing of a well-composed creed is one significant
means.
Basically the
question which outsiders ask the Church is:
“What do you believe?” Non-creedal churches reply: “We believe the Bible.” Creedal churches
respond further: “We believe the Bible,
and we have written out exactly what it is that we believe the Bible teaches,
which is....” The primary question, “What do you believe?” (to which the proper
response is “the Bible”) must be followed up by the more searching
question: “What do you believe the
Bible teaches?”
Creeds witness to
the truth to those outside the bounds of the covenant community by: (1) clearly
outlining and explicating the fundamental assertions of Christianity; (2)
seriously warning against misbelief; (3) vigorously defending the truth from
corruptions; (4) boldly witnessing to the unity and order of the Christian
system; (5) carefully demonstrating the continuity and immutability of the
historic Christian faith; (6) publicly demonstrating the rational, objective
content of Christian truth (as against mis-perceptions such as a belief that
Christian faith is a mystic, blind leap); and so on.
Sixth, creeds provide a standard by which to judge
new teachings arising within the Church. This function obviously relates to
ideas embodied in several of the above-mentioned functions. But its usefulness
in an age prone to cultism deserves separate and especial emphasis. “Christian”
cults are a particularly dangerous phenomenon in that they proselytize by
appeal to Scripture. Cults have been called “the unpaid bills of the Church.”
Creeds guard against cultic aberrations by clearly providing a proper
interpretation of essential truths. The more clearly, systematically, and
concisely truth is stated, the less likely people are to stray from it in the
fog of deception.
Maintaining a
standard of truth in the Church is in keeping with apostolic example. 1 John
4:1 warns: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see
whether they be of God.” Immediately following this John provides a specific
test point or standard of judgment (creed): “Every spirit that confesses that
Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not
confess Jesus is not from, God.” This credo was formulated in response to a
particular error infecting the early Church: docetism taught that Christ was really not a material person, but
only seemed (Gk.: dokeo) to have a material body. We could
cite numerous references following the pattern of 1 John 4 (e.g., Gal 1:8, 9; 2
John 10; Rev 2:2; etc.).
Because of the
relentless assaults on the Church from without and the internal buffetings from
within, creeds are crucial defensive instruments. As Bannerman aptly observes:
“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.”
We can produce a
strong biblical case in defense of creedalism. Creeds are invaluable
instruments of Christian education and discipline. They in no way diminish the
authority of Scripture. The decline in creedalism today in conservative
Christian circles is lamentable. Anti-creedalism represents not only a literary
and historical loss to society and culture, but a spiritual tragedy and
doctrinal danger to the Church.
Reformed Christians
need to be trained in creedal theology to bolster the historic Christian faith
against the assaults of relativistic, existential, liberal, and cultic
theologies current at this time. Reformed churches could curb the decline of
creedalism within their own ranks and within American Christianity in general
by several simple actions:
Sessions should
distribute the Westminster Standards to all of their congregational families
urging their study. The Christian Education program of local congregations
should include the catechizing of children and youth as an on-going function of
the church. New member classes should
be offered to those seeking membership within Reformed churches. These classes
should at least briefly introduce and review the Westminster Standards. Ministers and Sunday-school teachers should
be encouraged to expound the Standards in a systematic way and to illustrate
their lessons by reference to the Confessional documents.
May the Lord bless
us to know what we believe so that we might declare it to others. May we as
orthodox, Bible-believing Christians regain an appreciation for the biblical
and historic utility of creeds.