Modern dissent from the creeds

[jcr4runner]

Modern Dissent from the Creeds

Driving down a country road sometime, you might see a fundamentalist church with a sign proudly proclaiming: "No book but the Bible -- No creed but Christ." The problem with this statement is that the word creed (from the Latin: credo) simply means "belief." All Christians have beliefs, regardless of whether they are written. The creeds of the early Church were nothing more than scriptural statements of faith put into a systematic format.

The emphasis on creeds and confessions suffered a blow at the end of the last century, when conservative evangelicals reacted against Protestant denominations which fell into liberalism. "Dead orthodoxy" became a term to describe churches that officially held to the creeds and a confession of faith, yet had little fruit to testify to the genuine salvation of their members. To vanquish this apostasy, the evangelical movement (and the fundamentalists a few years later) emerged emphasizing salvation as an individual experience and the "literal" interpretation of Scripture.

The evangelical and fundamentalist movements were bulwarks against liberal apostasy. They did away with most of the public reading of Scripture, creeds and confessions. Liturgical services were abandoned in favor of a less formal, "seeker-friendly" type of evangelical meeting. There is certainly nothing wrong with this. But in abandoning the liturgy, they forgot to teach new church members the core elements of the faith found in the creeds and confessions. De-emphasizing the public reading of creeds was intentionally good, but it had disastrous consequences.

Among Pentecostals and charismatics -- two of the most recent groups to have come out of the evangelical and fundamentalist movements -- we see an even greater emphasis on throwing off formalism and dead orthodoxy in favor of freedom of worship and spiritual experience. Yet we most often find heresies among churches that stress experience over doctrine. This is not to say that Christians must now throw off their experience and freedom in order to return to dead liturgical services. Simply, what is needed at this time is a revival of confessional orthodoxy.

We call this movement -- "confessionalism" -- which is nothing more than the historic faith of the Early Church Fathers, Augustine, Luther, Calvin and the Puritans. Through even a casual study of the creeds and confessions, you will find that confessionalism stands in stark contrast to what is being offered today by evangelical Christianity.

[jcr4runner]

Today, we have more options than ever before for becoming heretics. Modern evangelical leaders make all sorts of wild claims and assert teachings which are not orthodox. The 20th century Church has promoted many doctrines which are not historically orthodox. Pelagianism, Sabellianism, modalism, antinomianism and Gnosticism are frequent heresies. Yet I do not believe that most modern evangelicals intentionally hold to heresies. I believe that some have propagated these ideas due to their ignorance or carelessness in what they have written and preached. Today, we all need a greater knowledge of confessional orthodoxy.

I offer the following recovery plan to all evangelicals who wish to build a comprehensive systematic theology based on biblical orthodoxy:

First, avoid the trash that is churned out by the modern evangelical pulp mills! Once this faulty paradigm is demolished, you should begin to build a new foundation for your faith by studying the creeds of the early Church. Then graduate to the more exhaustive and theologically comprehensive confessions of the Reformation period. (I have included a list of these confessions at the end of chapter six for further study.)

You should then read some select writings of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Knox, and the Puritans. With an understanding of confessional orthodoxy, you will see more clearly that these giants of the faith were theologically grounded in the creeds and confessions. Then read some of the sermons and writings of great modern Christian leaders such as George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, Charles Haddon Spurgeon and Charles Hodge.

I hope that by the study of these timeless, immutable truths, you will strengthen your resolve to press into God in prayer and study of Scripture in order to know Jesus Christ in a fuller, more intimate way.

[j.]

jcr4runner,

I think that somewhere Jesus was quoted as saying something like-

“new cloth, old cloth…” or “new wine, old wine…” and mixing, (leaven and unleavened)?

(Calvin and Wesley just do not mix. Study the two men-absolutely. But be sure readers that these two can never be considered brothers.)

If you have not noticed, orthodoxy is not doing so well. There is a reason for its apparent failure. You see, when orthodoxy sets itself up against the scriptures then one or the other must cease (looks like scripture is doing just fine). If you do not believe this just take a look at the orthodoxy of Jesus’ day. It got steamrolled right off the map, so to speak, you know, 70 A.D.

People who want to set themselves up as spiritual leaders need to quit playing around. The scriptures plainly teach us that each individual is to be both king and priest. Do you know what this means? It means that each individual has the right, the gift, the ability, the duty to judge rightly. The spiritual leaders need to remove their fancy wardrobes and take their rightful places next to everyone else.

j.

[jcr4runner]

You have a couple of misunderstandings about my use of the terms, orthodoxy and creeds. I am presuming too much when I think that people will understand the classical definitions of the terms.

"Orthodoxy" meams literally "right opinion." A "creed" (Latin: credo) means literally: a belief. All people have creeds, whether they are written or not. If one's beliefs are not correct, then they are not orthodox.

(And that is the very point of my article!)

1. Although John Calvin and John Wesley differed in their theology, they were united in their support of confessional orthodoxy. Wesley officially embraced the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England -- a Calvinist document. Wesley did not agree with the Canons of the Synod of Dordt which contain the so-called Five Points of Calvinism. But he was clearly orthodox in his support of the four ecumenical creeds and the Thirty-Nine Articles.

2. The first century Jews did not support orthodoxy. You are using a different definition of the term. You are thinking of orthodoxy as meaning "what is widely accepted to be true." Creedal orthodoxy means support of the doctrines found in the Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian and Chalcedonian Creeds -- the so-called four ecumenical creeds. These creeds are not truth in and of themselves. They are just a restatement of biblical doctrine in a systematic format in order to refute the prevailing heresies of the day -- Gnosticism, Arianism and other anti-Trinitarian heresies. The Jewish system of Temple worship was judged in 70 A.D. precisely because the Jewish leaders were not orthodox; they rejected Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity.

[j.]

jcr4runner,

Respectfully, I must disagree with you.

I think, (and this is just my opinion) that you have fallen into a trap. The trap is where a person thinks that they can define words any way that they choose, (of course with the support of others who also think that they also can define the meaning of words any way that they want).

“Christians” do not have a monopoly on the word orthodoxy. The Sanhedrin of Jesus’ day was purely orthodox in its belief pattern. Also, the Sanhedrin of Jesus’ day had completely move away from the spirit, (if not the letter, and I think a strong case can be made for the latter) of the law. This is orthodoxy. Orthodoxy played out to its natural conclusion “always”, and I repeat “always” seeks to supplant God’s Word.

Did not the Apostle Paul say that it was wrong to choose out leaders and say-

I follow this guy or that guy? (And Jesus was included, meaning that the name of Christ could be abused.)

As far as Wesley is concerned- I like the guy. But early in his ministry it could be questioned, (even by him) whether he was actually a believer. (My opinion of Calvin is grave danger.)

Thanks for responding to me jcr4runner as I find you an interesting conversant.

j.

[jcr4runner]

Your response is the essence of postmodernism -- that "truth" can be two different things to two different people. Of course, there is only one definition of orthodoxy. Orthodoxy means literally "correct opinion." When biblical theology is stated in terms of creeds and syllogisms, there can only be ONE truth.

The slogan, “No creed but Christ, no book but the Bible” is an oxymoron and an impossibility, since this statement is a creed in itself. What evangelicals and fundamentalists of the past 100 years hoped to avoid was the dead orthodoxy which had led to theological liberalism in the late 1800s. But a creed is only meaningless and dead when the faith of the person who confesses it is so individualistic and independent from the Body of Christ that the words can be recited with no sense of awe, no inner conviction that this is what the Church has believed for 2000 years. Where we find dead orthodoxy, it is not the creed that is dead, but the faith of the person reciting it.

The question is not the sincere faith of the person reciting the creed, but whether or not this is the faith of Christ and the Church. Modern Christianity assumes the absolute autonomy of the individual and his inalienable right to interpret the Bible for himself.

Modern evangelicalism is a “church” that has built its foundation on the sand. It has promoted an individualistic Christianity that must be reinvented every generation. In some Christian circles, we hear of a “new move of God” every two years.

The evangelical spurns “tradition” as that which leads to spiritual death. Yet the Bible speaks of “the faith that was delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3); “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15); and we are warned, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15).

When we hold to this faith, we hold not to our own personal convictions, but to the orthodox catholic faith; the faith based on tradition which preceded and will outlast the material universe. As we reclaim our spiritual ancestors, we will have face the fact that today’s individualistic faith was foreign to most of the Church. Historical disconnectedness is a phenomenon which has become widespread only in this century. We must do more than make a scholarly rediscovery of the historic faith; but we must experience the actual recovery of the faith.

[j.]

A creed is just a way to briefly organize orthodoxy into words. Orthodoxy is a way to briefly organize religion into practice.


To say that the individual does not have the right to judge for himself is to force that individual into a creed/orthodoxy by fiat. This is the ultimate replacement theology. The way that it works is-

Christ the Word made flesh is replaced by another entity.

This type of replacement is anti-Word because the creed/orthodoxy becomes more important than the Word that was made flesh. Creeds are not God’s Word therefore we do not have to fear them.

j.

[jcr4runner]

Question:

Which do you think has more validity?

1. What you think a passage of scripture means.

2. A single interpretation of the same passage by the majority Christian commentators over the past 2000 years.

[j.]

jcr4runner,

It would be unfair not to answer your last-

For the last 2000 years there has not been one creed but many differing creeds. Which one are you talking about? Do I have to address them all in order to disagree or can I just pick one? Which one do you pick? (I like smorgasbords when eating out as everyone in my family can have what they want and the price is cheap. So too are the creeds, lots of variety and cheap. As you well know my opinion is worthless; I do not feel too bad about this as the U.S. creed says that all men are created equal.)

But really jcr4runner, religious creeds came about because of the basic illiteracy from about 1750 A.D. all the way back to Adam and Eve. Just like in art, the religious/political rulers needed to communicate with the masses. Creeds were easy for those who could read only a little and had little to read. Art was easy for those who were totally illiterate, (if you can’t read draw pictures).

Now there are different types of illiteracy. Most people can read but as the Prophet Isaiah said “Can’t understand”. So sing us a little ditty, (read creed). This is what creeds are.

Do you have anything serious to add to this discussion, (maybe another article written by someone else)?

j.

[jcr4runner]

I agree that the availability of the Bible in mass print has promoted truth and that creeds were formulated (in part) to teach people who didn't have access to the Bible.

But does that mean that we need only the Bible and not creeds?

As I said before, this is an oxymoron. Everyone reads the Bible through a filter. Everyone formulates his own creed. Two people may read two diffferent doctrines in the same passage. Some read that man has free-will and can choose God. Others read that only God can choose who he will save. Others see a synergy. One passage -- three creeds. Only one view can be right. Who decides?

The problem then becomes that even among the church fathers there isn't always a solution or a unified view.

What I am saying is that there are certain views that have always been the majority view. The precepts of the Nicene Creed for instance are universally accepted by all churches.

I'd challenge you to tell me what parts of the Nicene Creed you disagree with. Each point is simply a restatement of Biblical truth. If you reject such restatements, then you reject all systematic theology. You even reject discussions such as these because no good can come out of man's dialectics. According to your view, no one should teach anything -- we all just need to read the Bible. But even then, we are formulating our own interpretation our wn creed. Creeds are inescapable.

The creeds and confessions of church history are simply the resolutions of debates that all sides could agree with. I trust these resolutions to help shape my own interpretations.

[j.]

jcr4runner,

If it is true that as you say, “Everyone reads the Bible through a filter” then the question is who is supplying all of these filters?

The Nicene Creed like the church itself will not, can not, does not save even one lost soul. We do not need these creeds as Jesus has made the blind to see, the deaf to hear, the lame to walk. The Master bids us, child of God take up thy bed…

j.

[jcr4runner]

We need creeds to filter the cults from orthodox Christianity. If you take just the Nicene Creed, for instance, then no, it is not necessary to know the Nicene Creed in order to be a Christian. If you read only the Bible you will have all these doctrines. But if you deny any of the main tenets of the Nicene Creed, then you are seriously deviating from the Christian faith and there is danger of falling into heresy -- such as denying the full deity of Christ.

So the Nicene Creed becomes useful for the beliefs it denies just as much as for what it affirms.

Now some may say that we don't need the Creed in order to tell what a Christian is, we have the Bible. True! The Bible alone IS sufficient. However, cults, such as Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, The Way, and numerous Eastern Monists, accept the Bible as holy Scripture. They affirm that Jesus is the Son of God. What they deny is the succinct definition of what the "Son of God" actually means according to the Nicene Creed.

True, it is possible to use the Bible to achieve the same end. That is how the Creed was formulated -- by using the Bible. But the use of the Creed keeps us from having the same debates over and over again in each generation. We have known since the early centuries why Mormonism and The Way are cults -- even though these religions hadn't appeared yet. The arguments used against Arianism by Athanasius and the Church Fathers were repeated in the Nicene, Athanasian and Chalcedonian Creeds. These same points of belief refute most modern day cults today.

If you deny the Creeds, you deny Christ.

See more on the use of the creeds in "Christianity vs. the Cults" at:

http://www.forerunner.com/orthodoxy/X00 ... _vs._.html

[jcr4runner]

jcr4runner,

If it is true that as you say, “Everyone reads the Bible through a filter” then the question is who is supplying all of these filters?

The Nicene Creed like the church itself will not, can not, does not save even one lost soul. We do not need these creeds as Jesus has made the blind to see, the deaf to hear, the lame to walk. The Master bids us, child of God take up thy bed…

j.

The problem comes when cults supply the filters. The deemphasis on the Creeds in favor of a fundamentalist approach to the Bible has come at a price. Ever since it became fashionable in the early 20th century for Christians to attack the "dead orthodoxy" of creedalism we have seen a corresponding rise in the popularity of cults. The Creeds cannot save even one soul, but the Creeds can define for us who is and who is not a Christian.

- Jay Rogers