Baptists and Creeds

[ksen]

I have been a Baptist since I was saved back in 1992. I've heard every now and then that one of the things we Baptists are kind of proud of is that we don't hold to man-made creeds.

And yet......the two churches I have been a member of have had a statement of faith (creed) that you needed to be in agreement with in order to become a voting member of the congregation.

My question is why do Baptists in general have a negative reaction to the word "Creed" but have no problem with "Statement of Faith?"

 

[Gold Dragon]

My question is why do Baptists in general have a negative reaction to the word "Creed" but have no problem with "Statement of Faith?"

Creeds are associated with ritualistic recital in liturgical services in addition to *gasp* Catholicism.

I consider pride in non-credalism while emphasizing Statements of Faith to be hypocritical.

I think creed have been very valuable throughout history to help Christians articulate what they believe, just like Statements of Faith do today.

 

[ksen]

Creeds are associated with ritualistic recital in liturgical services in addition to *gasp* Catholicism.

I consider pride in non-credalism while emphasizing Statements of Faith to be hypocritical.

I think creed have been very valuable throughout history to help Christians articulate what they believe, just like Statements of Faith do today.

I think there is a fair amount of ignorance in our "denomination" when it comes to creeds and their value.

A few years ago I would have cringed at accepting the Nicene or Athanasian creeds, but that's because I hadn't ever read them and understood what they said. There was just a knee-jerk reaction when the word "creed" was uttered. And you are right, it was because the word "Creed" sounded too Catholic.

I just think that as Baptists we do ourselves a great disservice by ignoring the men that have gone on before us. It's like every new generation wants to reinvent the wheel.

 

[rural_preacher]

The oldest Creed that we have is contained in our Bibles and has been accepted by the church since the beginning:

I Corinthians 15:3-8

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Other creeds have simply built upon this original creed that was given through Paul by the Holy Spirit.

As long as a creed lines up with the Truth of God's Word I'm all for it!


--

 

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

Creeds are associated with ritualistic recital in liturgical services in addition to *gasp* Catholicism.

I consider pride in non-credalism while emphasizing Statements of Faith to be hypocritical.

I think creed have been very valuable throughout history to help Christians articulate what they believe, just like Statements of Faith do today.

Might I also add our observing ordiniances, instead of administrating the sacraments to the list, btw I agree completely.

 

[Stinker]

Every church has it's own creed. Every church. The only difference is, is that Denominations have their written, whereas those churches who clain to be non-denominational do not have theirs written down.

 

[seebs]

Every church has it's own creed. Every church. The only difference is, is that Denominations have their written, whereas those churches who clain to be non-denominational do not have theirs written down.

Almost every church.

I do not think most Quakers have anything you could call a "creed".

 

[SteveR2021]

I just think that as Baptists we do ourselves a great disservice by ignoring the men that have gone on before us. It's like every new generation wants to reinvent the wheel.

Amen. I agree wholeheartedly.

I do not think most Quakers have anything you could call a "creed".

Sure they do - I don't know what the Quakers are like in the States (I'm sure there is some variability) but the Quakers that I visit seem to have a very definite creed...it is has nothing to say about God but its still a creed. Quakers put their faith in the inner light and they regularly remind one another to listen to the inner light and listen to one another. That seems very similar to a creed to me.

 

[Sinai]

I have been a Baptist since I was saved back in 1992. I've heard every now and then that one of the things we Baptists are kind of proud of is that we don't hold to man-made creeds.

And yet......the two churches I have been a member of have had a statement of faith (creed) that you needed to be in agreement with in order to become a voting member of the congregation.

My question is why do Baptists in general have a negative reaction to the word "Creed" but have no problem with "Statement of Faith?"

I suspect that much of the reason comes from a combination of Baptist history and Baptist doctrine. Consider for a moment the interrelationship between the following fundamental Baptist doctrines:

1. The Bible as sole primary authority. Although all Christians probably consider the Bible to be God's word and accept it as a primary authority, some denominations accept tradition, other writings and pronouncements by their church leader(s) as being equal to or even superior to the Bible. Baptists may consider such things as being somewhat persuasive or instructive, but Baptists use biblical scriptures as their sole primary authority.

2. Priesthood of the believer. Baptists believe Christians can go directly to the throne of God through our lord and mediator, Jesus Christ. No pastor, priest or other human being has to filter the prayer or the message for us.

3. Soul competency in religion. Each of us has the right, the power and the responsibility to study God's word and to prayerfully determine its meaning. That does not mean we cannot study other writings or consider what others think. It does, however, mean that we do not have the right to tell anyone else what they have to believe or how they have to interpret any given scripture. Nor do they have the right to demand that we believe as they do. As the great Baptist theologian Herschel H. Hobbs said, "The moment that a Baptist seeks to coerce another person--even another Baptist--in matters of religion, he violates the basic belief of Baptists."

And (from a Baptist perspective, at least) thats where the danger of creeds comes in. Creeds have historically been used by persons in power to coerce others in what should be believed and how it should be believed. And thats one of the major reasons the new Baptist Faith and Message adopted by the SBC is so controversial: It specifically allows itself to be used as a creed instead of merely giving a statement of what most Baptists believe--and it has been used as a creed to terminate the employment of those missionaries, professors and others who refused to elevate it to a position of authority higher than the Bible or Christ.

 

[JM]

I use the LBC of 1689 a lot.

http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html

 

[theend0218]

I think also one must consider that many Baptists (Southern Baptists, in particular) want to say the Bible is their sole authority for faith and practice, but also want to make sure everyone associated with their particular church read the Bible the same way. The reason Baptists were able to get away with this shuffle for so long was their size and organization (organizationally speaking, you can do many things when you are small that you become afraid to do when you are very large). If you wanted to disagree with everyone in your church you could go start your own. As Baptists grew, their wealth increased as well. Once you start building an empire you have too much invested to just walk away. What to do? Start tighting your grip on the organizational entities by making a Statement of Faith. In time those who disagree find ways to disagree without denying the Statement. The natural response is to then make the Statement tighter, more precise. Next, you gain the political clout to insist that everyone working for the official organization agree with the Statement of Faith. At this point what do you have if not a creed? Well, there might be a legal name for it, but I digress. The next step is to "encourage" the churches affliated with your organization to insist that all members agree with the Statement. Southern Baptists are acting more and more like an official denomination (rather than independent churches united for missionary work through a Convention). One could be cynical and say that the SBC now belongs to a group of people who can keep their buildings, etc., after a theological battle because the creed is on their side. They are always the ones who get to stay regardless of who "wins" the arguments. If you think this is not an issue go back to the 80s and the battle over the seminaries. In short, the SBC leadership has in effect created a creed, an official way of understanding what the Bible teaches. I always laugh when I read Calvin's remarks concerning his little book of theology (which I enjoy very much) - he wanted people to read it before they read the commentaries (which he also wrote). Why? So they would not become confused when they read verses that could (should) be interpreted in ways that frightened him. This is undoubtedly the natural evolution of all organziations. Finally, I suspect in the end we do not pick a church in order to find the truth - we pick one because we already think we know it. We build schools to train our ministers so they will read the Bible in the correct way - our way. Baptists in this differ from no one. Human, all to human, to quote an old "friend."

 

[JustinWindsor]

The 1689 Baptist creed is a very good creed or statement of faith overall. It is also a good example of how a writ by man, uninspired by the Holy Spirit can be in error. Item #22, points #7 & 8 are unscriptural and show that the authors of this document did not understand that the Sabbath rest, made for man, typified by the Sabbaths of the Old Covenant is realized in Christ. It is the rest from the requirement of fulfillment of the Law of Moses.

There is never an apostolic teaching for a Gentile to keep any part of the Old Covenant. Quite the opposite actually, Jews are told it is abolished. It stands only as a ministry of condemnation, if we seek to earn righteousness by keeping any part of it we are condemned. The ministry of the New Covenant is salvation. That is why it is called the "Gospel"..."Good News". Rest from our works (regarding a means for salvation).

To the New Covenant Christian every day belongs to the Lord. Meeting on the first day of the week is distinctively Christian by tradition and the example of the Apostles, but not by command. When we look to it as a rule or standard to obtain righteousness, we are way off track. Calling it a Christian Sabbath is serious error in terms of the New Covenant. It is an oxymoron.

What is the Sabbath in the Old Covenant? A day or time set apart to honour God. A day to go to the temple for cleansing. What is the Sabbath in the New Covenant? A life set apart to honour God. A life cleansed by the blood of the Lamb, once for all.

Just as God rested from His works on the seventh day, man shall rest from His works (the requirement to fulfill the Law of Moses) through the New Covenant in Christ's blood. [Hebrews 4:1-10; Col 2:16,17; 2 Cor 3:1-9]
May God Bless

 

[St.Augustine]

It's like every new generation wants to reinvent the wheel.

Absolutely true!

 

[JM]

The 1689 Baptist creed is a very good creed or statement of faith overall.

I agree, I also agree with you on the Sabbath...but was hoping to not get into a covenant vs. Dispey debate.

peace