Creeds and Confessions

Another nice opportunity to express the problems of creeds and confessions

1. Heretics are deemed such, not because they don't believe the Bible, but because they believe wrong interpretations of the Bible.

Agreed. However, the distinction between believing the Bible and believing the wrong things about the Bible has not been made. Truly, when SBC leaders have complained about other Christians who disagree with them about the proper meaning of Scripture, the complaint is not that “they have misinterpreted the Bible” but that “they don’t believe the Bible.” Basically, people have been saying that those who do not believe in their own interpretation of Scripture do not believe in Scripture at all.

2. Modern US denominational creeds - faults and all - do not *make* or *force* anyone to believe anything. We simply do not have the military/political structure to do such a thing.

Really, denominational creeds do not force anyone to believe anything? I think you might want to ask the numerous missionaries, professors, and administrators who have been fired because they did not believe the BFM 2000. You might better inquire about the numerous churches which have been told that they could not be a part of a denomination because they did not believe the BFM 2000. Also, it might be best to ask around many of the Baptist state colleges who are under pressure to adopt the BFM 2000. Again, with references to professors, the matter of tension was not that the professors did not teach within the parameters of the BFM 2000 but that they did not believe it themselves.

Who needs a state military to coerce the other believers when you can simply threaten the future of their ministries and their well-being of their families?

Of course, now we are coercing all these same individuals to either adopt a particular view of alcohol consumption and “private prayer language” – neither of which is confessed in the BFM 2000 – or face the same consequences. Yes, the trustees at particular SBC agencies have taken it upon themselves to interpret Scripture for all Southern Baptists and then set doctrinal parameters for such matters.

It’s sort of like the U.S. judges who ignore a particular law and legislate from the bench. Some may cry “foul” about such an action, but the judges simply state that they have been appointed by presidents and congressmen who have been elected by the people; when they make any new law from the bench they are simply acting in accordance to the will of the people. Of course, the same SBC leaders who set doctrine in this same manner will then turn around and have “Justice Sundays.”

The Bible is data. The confession/creed is the Christian understanding of it.

I like your statement: “The Bible is data.The confession/creed is the Christian understanding of it.”

True, confessions and creeds do express a particular Christian group’s interpretation of the Faith (and not just the Scriptures). Be aware of the other authoritative interpretations of the Scriptures.

The oral law of the Pharisees – these were authoritative interpretations of the Pentateuch that the 1st century Jewish rabbis of Jesus’ day believed to be the correct interpretation of the OT faith. Really, the Pharisees believed the Bible to be inspired and inerrant but they also believed that they had the correct interpretation of the OT and forced such an interpretation on others, coerced everyone other Jew to adopt their interpretation or be denied fellowship (i.e., excommunicated). Jesus responded that they were negating the Scriptures through their traditional interpretations.

The canon law of the Roman Catholic Church – the Roman Catholics certainly believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. They also believe that they have the right interpretation of the Scriptures. How so? The correct interpretation of the Scriptures has been passed down to them through numerous Church leaders (apostles, the patristics, popes, councils, etc.). They believed they had the correct traditional interpretation of Scripture and then coerced every other Roman Catholic to adopt their interpretation or be denied fellowship (i.e., excommunicated). Martin Luther responded that they were negating the Scriptures through their traditional interpretations.

The BFM 2000 of the Southern Baptists – Southern Baptists certainly believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. We also believe that we have the right interpretation of the Scriptures. How so? Because we hold the Scriptures up very high and say that we only follow them. The correct interpretation of the Scriptures has been passed down to us through numerous avenues. We believe that we have the correct traditional interpretation of Scripture and are now coercing every other Southern Baptist to adopt our interpretation or be denied fellowship (i.e., excommunicated).

Is this not the case?

#2 is why I have a very hard time buying into much of a distinction between a confession and a creed. Such distinctions seem to work only if one assumes that the central role of a creed is its use by a political state to force conformity.

Agreed. When the BFM was being devised a major concern was the traditional understanding of the Baptist faith that we are not a “creedal people.” Therefore, the distinction was made between creeds and confessions to remove any idea that people would be forced into believing the BFM.

“Baptists are a people of deep beliefs and cherished doctrines. Throughout our history we have been a confessional people, adopting statements of faith as a witness to our beliefs and a pledge of our faithfulness to the doctrines revealed in Holy Scripture.”

Again, the use of the BFM 2000 has been to enforce conformity to it. Why else are people (who do not hold to particular aspects of the document) being fired left and right even when they agree to honor it as the SBC confession?

Why is no one who signs the document ever saying, “Yes, I agree with most of the document except perhaps A, B, and C.”?

Why are all SBC seminary professors now having to sign the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy (a good 27 year old document) when it is not a SBC confession?


All the same, may the tribe of Williams and Harmon increase.

Heck, if Williams and Harmon are not advocating the enforcement of particular creeds (really, how would one today force the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan" Creed on anyone?) but simply urging other evangelical believers to examine the past confessions of previous believers, then I certainly do support them!