Baptists and Confessions: In Defense of Subscription

Not sure why Baptist are not more aligned to Creeds and Confessions. It is typically just the SBC and Reformed Baptists that hold to these (as well as Presbyterians). The problem with the Reformed is that they hold onto a confession that I feel has begun to show portions of its age. A confession should be relevant today, while at the same time holding onto its historical roots. The SBC confession has been updated over the years with its roots in the New Hampshire Confession of Faith.

Our elders have been introducing / reintroducing our people to the historic, ecumenical creeds of Christianity. Additionally, we've used certain catechisms during our worship services. The biggest "stumbling block" so far has been the reference to the "holy catholic church." Even after we explained what that phrase meant, we had some of our people tell us they don't recite that line of the creeds.

We did have one couple leave our church briefly after we recited the nicene creed. They told us later they thought we went Catholic. When they visited another church and told them they left because we recited the nicene creed as a congregation, the pastor there told them it was a good thing to recite the creeds and to return to our church.

We also got pushback when we recited a few Q&A's from the heidelberg catechism. We had a now-former member who is anti-calvinist. He objected to reciting a catechism written by "murders and heretics."

I'm guessing a lot of the pushback is because in churches where creeds are recited each week, like the United Methodist church I grew up in, the repetition becomes rote, and the creed is not actually believed and acted on. There is also the objection that ("and descended into Hell") a creed can actually introduce error, or can be a straitjacket that inhibits real theological growth.

That noted, I've overcome my previous aversion to creeds because I know that "The Fundamentals" and "The Solas" are creeds of sorts, and the Nicene and Apostles' creeds have great truth that we fundagelicals need to hear--and yes, debate what "descended into Hell" really means in light of Christ's ministry to those captive spirits described in 1 Peter 3:19.

First, a church shouldn't use a confession or creed that it doesn't subscribe to. There are enough out there to allow a church to navigate theologically through to the right one. Also, the elders need to teach the congregation what a confession and creed does. They should understand and lead the congregation through what is an absolute, full and loose subscription position means and how their particular congregation should view the adoption of the confession.

I would not argue that "and descended into Hell" is an error in the Apostle's Creed. I do realize some people have concerns with this statement, because of a lack of understanding of what it means and why it is in the Apostle's Creed. This could be a good opportunity to teach through this statement over a series of lessons. But again, if the church leadership and congregation doesn't subscribe to the Apostle's Creed they shouldn't recite it. The purpose of the creeds and confessions is not to recite it, but to hold to it. Recitation does nothing, and shouldn't be an exercise the church partakes in.

If you would like a good read. I recommend Dr. Samuel Renihan's book, "Crux.Mors.Inferi" - A primer and reader on the Descent of Christ. It is the most exhaustive study on this subject and one in which most of the church has simply forgotten.

We excluded that statement when we recited the creed because it was a later addition to the creed.

Other than that, our church holds to the doctrines and statements in the creeds, including the "holy catholic church" properly understood.

I can respect excluding the statement. It appeared to first show up in 390, but the belief was present all the way back to the beginning of the church as well as attested within Scripture. It most likely appeared in 390 in reaction to Apollinarianism. If you, as a pastor don't align to it, I would leave it out. If you are aligned to it, but feel that the church body might be uncomfortable with it, I think it is a great opportunity to teach through something that has so much rich theology around it. Most of the concern comes from confusion around what "descent" means.

Here's a shameless plug for The Baptist Confession of Faith & Catechism for Dispensational Churches

It's a light revision of the Second London Baptist Confession.

I will have to read this one Brandon. Why do you feel that it is a "light revision"? I would assume, since the SLBC is built on a covenant framework that a decent amount of revision would need to be made in order align it to a dispensational framework.

Why do you feel that it is a "light revision"?

Covenant Theology affects a few sections of the 2LBC, but most of it is fully compatible with a dispensational hermeneutic.

In some places, I simply needed to replace "Covenant of Grace" or "Covenant" with "grace."

Chs. 19 ("The Law of God") and 32 ("The Last Judgment") were the only chapters that required a significant rewrite, though I sought to employ the same basic grammar and syntax as the original so the revisions would not stand out.