I think that in third wave Protestant churches such Baptists creeds have been replaced by doctrinal statements.
If I am looking into a denomination, I want to see their doctrinal statement.
Campbell ducked the issue by saying something like where the Bible speaks we speak.
That's fine but I do not know what you believe.
I don't have time for heterodox ideas at my time of life.
Either the written word of God is the written word of God alone or it is not. Either the 66 book Bible or it is not.
Statements of faith (creeds) are not the God breathed written word of God, else the written 66 book Bible as the sole authority is a falsehood. Then a Bible plus other authorities. Not Baptist.
I don't think that it is either or.
Of course, Scripture is the sole authority but if someone asks what you believe and you have no doctrinal statement, what are they to do?
Don't Fundamentalists list the Fundamentals of the faith?
I am not interested in a denomination or stand-alone congregation that cannot give me a written statement of their beliefs and it better not be childish.
For example, when I recently became interested in Answers in Genesis, I checked out their belief statement just as I did a few years ago with Utah Lighthouse Mission even though I already knew that Sandra Tanner was one of the greatest experts on Mormonism.
Did you read the article linked to in the OP? It was written in the context of the NBC battles. Back then you had the Modernists, what the SBC calls the Conservative Resurgence, and the uncommitted.
The conservatives wanted to define terms with the adoption of the New Hampshire Confession. The Modernists piously cried, "No Creed but the Bible." The uncommitted voted with the Modernists.
Please see David Beale's In Search of Purity and Larry Oats To the Parise of His Glory for a fuller treatment of the battle. As to my seemingly harsh words describing the Modernists and Liberals, please see J. Gresham Machen's Christianity and Liberalism.
Statements of faith are actually useful. When choosing a church it can be helpful. That is not what I am arguing against. Statements of faith do not assume the same authoritative gravitas that creeds often do.
I think that's the key. We all have our understandings and interpretations which should correspond with the way others have viewed Scripture. We gravitate to those with a common understanding. A creed or confession is a starement which expresses this common belief.
But the expression of a common belief (or common interpretation) is not Scripture itself. It is up to each geneneration to revisit and reexamine these expressions. As useful as creeds and confessions may be to summarize or explain, they can never become our authority. The Scripture behind these creeds and confessions are where our faith has to rest.
That is why my answer to "no creeds but the Bible" is no authority but Scripture. "No creed but the Bible" is a creed in and of itself. We go beyond our subjective belief to objective Scripture.
I worked on helping to formulate a "What we believe" statement for a local Baptist church.
After an initial draft from our Pastor, each of the Elders did a mark-up.
We added some items, and reworded others.
It allowed for a Calvinist interpretation, but just as certainly it allowed for a non-Calvinist interpretation.
One thing was certain, we believe God spreads His kingdom by persuasion, not compulsion.
But then we were Baptists, who believe in the competency of believers.
You are right that doctrinal statements have superseded creeds to a large extent.
But you're not going to get a congregation to recite the 1689 Confession together.
You are also right that 'we believe the Bible' is not sufficient.
One needs to know what the church or denomination thinks the Bible teaches.
There was a baptist confession as early as 1644.
But what you fail to understand is that a confession or creed establishes the Bible as the sole authority.
Just in case you missed it in post #7, here is the opening paragraph of the 1689 Baptist Confession:
The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience' (1:1).
That is a protection against people adding to Scripture.
The English Baptist Union has gone to pieces because it is not protected by a Confession of faith.
One of the flagship B.U. churches, Mutley Baptist Church in Plymouth, has been torn apart over homosexuality and same-sex marriage.
It has come to something when people are leaving a Baptist church to join an Anglican one because the latter is more faithful to the Bible! :eek:
But that is what is happening in Plymouth.
IMHO critics do not miss this point, they dismiss it. It fits into their presupposition that all creeds/confessions are extra-biblical and subvert the Bible. Of course, they do not get it that once you ask them what they believe about a point of doctrine they give you their opinion which is tantamount to a confession (Romans 10:9). The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith is a doctrinal statement. It points the reader to the Word of God. It offers commentary on what the Bible teaches but it is not the Bible. No matter how many times you point this out to a critic they will refute it. It is better to just leave them to their own wisdom and move on down the road.
There are actually confessions or creeds in The new testament
If one does not believe in a creed or confession why do you have sermons?
Confessions or creeds serve to codify what christians should believe about a specific topic of the Bible ie the Doctrine of God, the Church etc.
Creeds in the NT? Where? And the word :codify" implies someone else's imposing of what they believe we should believe. This Baptist believes in soul liberty.
What Christians should believe is the Bible. If a person doubts my particular beliefs A, B, or C. he needs to show me from the Bible why I am wrong. If he convinces me he has my gratitude and respect. Even if I am not convinced I still respect someone who tries to use Scripture to make his point.
Sermons? I do believe that sermons have gained undue prominence over the centuries. The first century churches did not have one person doing all the talking and one hundred or more doing all the listening. What is the Greek word for pew?
One of my favorites, and a comment I believe can be applied here (although spoken about election):
“But if you do not see it to be here in the Bible, whatever I may say, or whatever authorities I may plead, I beg you as you love your souls, reject it; and if from this pulpit you ever hear things contrary to this sacred word, remember that the Bible must be the first, and God’s minister must be subject to it. We must not stand on the Bible to preach, but we must preach with the Bible above our heads. After all we have preached, we are well aware that the mountain of truth is higher than our eyes can discern; clouds and darkness are around its summit, and we cannot discern its topmost pinnacle; yet we will try to preach it as well as we can. But since we are mortal and liable to error, exercise your judgment; “Test the spirits to see whether they are from God;” and if on mature reflection on your bended knees, you are led to disregard election–a thing which I consider utterly impossible–then forsake it, don’t listen to it preached, but believe and confess whatever you see to be God’s word. I can say no more than that by way of introduction.”
Spurgeon
Any particular (so to speak) reason you didn't pick the Helwys confession of 1611 as the first Baptist confession?
As did the Helwys confession: "That the scriptures of the Old and New Testament are written for our instruction, (2 Timothy 3:16) &that we ought to search them for they testify of CHRIST, (10:5. 39). And therefore to be used withal reverence, as containing the Holy Word of GOD, which only is our direction in al things whatsoever. (emphasis added)."
To the Parise of His Glory seems to be a biography.
It might be interesting, but biographies are usually one sided in favor of the protagonist.
I might read Christianity and Liberalism.
It's pretty easy to get.
From what I can tell, he is talking about Unitarians.
Do unitarians = liberalism?
I guess I'll have to read the book to find out.
That being said, some people seem to think that having no creed means the death of the church.
The SBC had no "creed" from 1845 to 1920 something.
SBC didn't die a horrible death at that time.
Sorry I goofed on the book title. It's In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850
Yes, To the Praise of His Glory is a biography. However, Dr. Oats does a fairly good job of setting up the milieu B. Myron Cedarholm found himself in.
As for
1920 is the start of the fight in the NBC. We can see where the SBC went with a "creed."
And where the NBC went without one.