# Questions on Creeds



## Christusregnat (Jul 27, 2008)

Howdy y'all,

I'm on a Committee to study our liturgy, and the issue of Creeds came up in our most recent meeting.

Currently we say the so-called Apostles' and the Nicene (with the "credimus"). Personally, I'm not much for the "*We* believe" since it is a psychological impossibility. Be that as it may, what I would like to find out is:

1. Which Creeds (if any) do your churches recite?

2. Which Creeds did the Reformers (Beza, Calvin, Luther and Zwingli, e.g.) recommend and use?

3. Is there any reason to use the "*I* believe" vs. the "*We* believe"?

4. Do any of your churches ever read the Athanasian Creed?

5. Any other Creeds worth reciting besides Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian?

Any input would be helpful. Also, if you happen to think that creeds are a bad idea, I'm not interested in debating. This thread is only for people who don't have a problem with them.

Cheers,


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 27, 2008)

Apostle's, Nicene used at our church.

The Apostle's Creed was part of Calvin's liturgy. Most likely the rest of them as well.

The Athanasian Creed is pretty long.

I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "WE" believe. This is a "common confession", a common oath. You (all) are joining your voice to the echoes of the confessors through the centuries. 

I take excerpts from all three of our subordinate Standards (Westminster); I have used Belgic Confession excerpts and Q&A from the Heidelberg Cat.

The Lord's Prayer is a form of confession. It is a statement of faith about prayer, as well as being a model prayer. This is how the Westminster Catechisms treat it. So, if you know your cat. answers, the Prayer may also be a confessional statement. But in our church we do not use it.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Jul 27, 2008)

We use the Apostle's Creed and the Lord's prayer only. The Apostle's Creed is in the "I believe" form...


----------



## Guido's Brother (Jul 27, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> 1. Which Creeds (if any) do your churches recite?
> 
> 2. Which Creeds did the Reformers (Beza, Calvin, Luther and Zwingli, e.g.) recommend and use?
> 
> ...



1. We usually sing the Apostles' Creed in the afternoon service. When we celebrate the Lord's Supper, we sing the Creed as well. Typically, on those Sundays we will then recite the Nicene Creed in the afternoon. 

2. I believe Calvin refused to subscribe to the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds. However, in the Belgic Confession of 1561, the Reformed churches of the Netherlands confessed, "...we willingly receive the three creeds, of the Apostles, of Nicea, and of Athanasius." (Article 9) 

3. I don't think it matters too much. A good reason would be to preserve the historical text and that's important because they are "ecumenical" creeds. 

4. We use the Athanasian Creed twice per year. I don't have the people recite, but just follow along and say it with me in their hearts. Because it is long, I usually break it into two parts, with a Trinitarian Hymn after Article 28.

5. Nope. 

Hope that helps!


----------



## Poimen (Jul 27, 2008)

1. Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, Belgic Confession Articles 1 & 8 and the Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 1 & 24-25. 

2. I am only aware of the Apostle's Creed being used in the (old or initial) Reformed liturgies but they may have used others.

3. That is one of the reasons why one could alternate between the Apostle's Creed and, say, the Belgic because we stress that these are words we say with the "holy catholic church" and not just as individuals. However when we recite the Apostle's Creed we do so with the individual "I".

4. I have in the past and, similar to Wes, I broke it up into two parts but, in contrast, typically I would do so over two Sundays and not one. 

5. See number 1. I would also be comfortable using the Westminster Standards but since we do not subscribe to them in our Reformed churches we do not cite them.


----------



## wmc1982 (Jul 27, 2008)

I take it the Creeds are to direct us in Scripture but they have no level of inspiration from God?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 27, 2008)

We do not usually recite a creed at my church. We do however "confess" using a catechism question each week.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 27, 2008)

Our church alternates between the historic creeds as printed in the Trinity Hymnal; I abstain as I am not convinced of the practice. I think there are older threads on this. The Westminster divines dropped the recitation of the Creed from the worship service, but they did print it at the end of the WSC as an agreeable sum of the Christian faith, with an explanatory note on Christ's descent into hell; for which see Danny Hyde's excellent article.
In Defense of the Descendit by Daniel R. Hyde | The Confessional Presbyterian


----------



## wmc1982 (Jul 27, 2008)

Seems like there is a possible danger of pharasic ideas with the creeds, as they are not God inspired.

(Sorry, I'm in the middle of FF Bruce's "Paul..." right now, focused on Pauline theology  )


----------



## MW (Jul 27, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> 1. Which Creeds (if any) do your churches recite?



We recite in song the creed of our Lord Jesus Christ in the book of Psalms, Hebrews 2:12.


----------



## bookslover (Jul 27, 2008)

wmc1982 said:


> I take it the Creeds are to direct us in Scripture but they have no level of inspiration from God?



Correctamundo. The creeds are summaries of what the Bible teaches, but they themselves are not inspired by God. They are merely human compositions. This is why they are known as _secondary_ standards.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 28, 2008)

Guido's Brother said:


> 2. I believe Calvin refused to subscribe to the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds. However, in the Belgic Confession of 1561, the Reformed churches of the Netherlands confessed, "...we willingly receive the three creeds, of the Apostles, of Nicea, and of Athanasius." (Article 9)
> ....
> 5. Nope.
> 
> Hope that helps!



Wes, 

Indeed, that helps much!

Do you happen to know what exactly Calvin found objectionable? I seem to recall, in reading the Institutes, that he basically held to Nicea and to the Athanasian, as Augustine composed the second, and he vehemently fought for the first.... 

I know he had problems with the descendit clause in the Apostles, which I find odd.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 28, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> We do not usually recite a creed at my church. We do however "confess" using a catechism question each week.



Benjamin,

If you get all the way through the catechism, you will find that (eventually) you will end up reciting the sum and substance of all three Creeds previously mentioned. In fact, their are portions of the WLC lifted right out of Nicea, Chalcedon, and Athanasian, such the Father begetting, the Son begotten and the Spirit proceeding. 

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 28, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> , with an explanatory note on Christ's descent into hell; for which see Danny Hyde's excellent article.
> In Defense of the Descendit by Daniel R. Hyde | The Confessional Presbyterian



Thank you! I will check this out. I skimmed through it, and it looks pretty good!

Adam


----------



## Guido's Brother (Jul 28, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> [
> Wes,
> 
> Do you happen to know what exactly Calvin found objectionable? I seem to recall, in reading the Institutes, that he basically held to Nicea and to the Athanasian, as Augustine composed the second, and he vehemently fought for the first....
> ...



According to Reymond's A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (319-330), Calvin had a problem with the filioque clause (proceeding from the Father _and the Son_) in the Nicene Creed and also the Father's eternal generation of the Son. Both doctrines are also found in the Athanasian Creed. Moreover, I seem to recall reading somewhere that there was also a political angle on his refusal -- something about refusing to acknowledge the right of the Geneva syndics to ask him to subscribe to the creeds. But I can't think of the source right now.

As for the descendit, the article of Danny Hyde will help.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 28, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > We do not usually recite a creed at my church. We do however "confess" using a catechism question each week.
> ...



Oh I agree. I was just stating what we do at my church.


----------



## ADKing (Jul 28, 2008)

Guido's Brother said:


> According to Reymond's A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (319-330), Calvin had a problem with the filioque clause (proceeding from the Father _and the Son_) in the Nicene Creed and also the Father's eternal generation of the Son. Both doctrines are also found in the Athanasian Creed. .



Just for the record, Reymond is highly inaccurate on these points and many have dispelled the myth that Calvin "had a problem" with the Nicene creed. Reymond misrepresents Calvin in an attempt to find some historical support for his own anti-Nicene bias. 

(Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion...we do not receite creeds in worship, finding no warrant for it).


----------



## Jon Peters (Jul 28, 2008)

ADKing said:


> Guido's Brother said:
> 
> 
> > According to Reymond's A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (319-330), Calvin had a problem with the filioque clause (proceeding from the Father _and the Son_) in the Nicene Creed and also the Father's eternal generation of the Son. Both doctrines are also found in the Athanasian Creed. .
> ...



I know Mathison takes on Reymond in The Shape of Sola Scripture, but can you cite another source I might read which refutes Reymond? Thanks.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 28, 2008)

Guido's Brother said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Wes, I was looking in Calvin, and found the following:

"For this reason, the Son is said to be *of the Father only*; the Spirit *of both the Father and the Son*. This is done in many passages, but in none more clearly than in the eighth chapter to the Romans, where the same Spirit is called indiscriminately the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of him who raised up Christ from the dead. And not improperly. For Peter also testifies (1 Pet. 1:21), that it was the Spirit of Christ which inspired the prophets, though the Scriptures so often say that it was the Spirit of God the Father.
19. Moreover, this distinction is so far from interfering with the most perfect unity of God, that the Son may thereby be proved to be one God with the Father, inasmuch as he constitutes one Spirit with him, and that the Spirit is not different from the Father and the Son, inasmuch as he is the Spirit of the Father and the Son."

Book I, XIII, 18 - 19

I would say this reasonably approaches the Nicean view. Also, Calvin goes on in Section 19 to commend Augustine's work on the Trinity, which is definitely Nicean, as well as Augustine being the inspiration (author?) of the Athanasian Creed.

I'd be interested in Raymond's argument.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## ADKing (Jul 29, 2008)

Jon Peters said:


> ADKing said:
> 
> 
> > Guido's Brother said:
> ...



See this superb article: _Calvin and Catholic Trinitarianism: an examination of Robert Reymond's understanding of the Trinity and his appeal to John Calvin_ in the Calvin Theological Journal by Paul Owen (35 n.2, 200 pp.262-281). 

James Dennison Jr. gave a great address at the May 2007 Kerux Conference called "Remarks on the Current Rejection of the Eternal Generation of the Son". I am sure it is availaible from Northwest Theological Seminary. He also published an article in Kerux sometime back (sorry I don't have the reference handy) about Calvin's Trinitarian defence of the Nicene creed in the anti-Trinitarian conflict in the Italian congregation in Geneva. 

Although not directed specifically at Reymond, one can also consult Richard Muller's fabulous Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics volume on the Trinity to see that the Reformers and Post-Reformers (is that really a term?) were in favor of Nicaea. 

Not withstanding Reymond's arguments he is giving you a fine piece of historical revisonism that grossly misrepresents the authors he cites.


----------



## Guido's Brother (Jul 29, 2008)

I had a second look and I see that I should not have introduced Reymond into this discussion. I agree that Reymond is revisionistic on this point. 

I think I found the source where I first read about Calvin refusing to subscribe to the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. I believe it was Warfield, "Calvin's Doctrine of the Trinity." It happened in the midst of a conflict with Peter Caroli:

"Calvin refused to subscribe the ancient creeds at Caroli's dictation, not in the least because he did not find himself in accord with their teaching, but solely because he was determined to preserve for himself and his colleagues the liberties belonging to Christian men, subject in matters of faith to no other authority than that of God speaking in the Scriptures. He tells us himself that it was never his purpose to reject these creeds or to detract from their credit; and he points out that he was not misunderstood even by Caroli to be repudiating their teaching; but Caroli conceded that what he did was - in Caroli's bad Latin, or as Calvin facetiously calls it, "his Sorbonnic elegance" - "neither to credit nor to discredit them." He considered it intolerable that the Christian teacher's faith should be subjected to the authority of any traditional modes of statement, however venerable, or however true; and he refused to be the instrument of creating a precedent for such tyranny in the Reformed Churches by seeming to allow that a teacher might be justly treated as a heretic until he cleared himself by subscribing ancient symbols thrust before him by this or that disturber of the peace. There were his writings, and there was his public teaching, and he was ready to declare plainly what he believed: let him be judged by these expressions of his faith in accordance with the Word of God alone as the standard of truth. Accordingly, when he first confronted Caroli in behalf of the Genevan ministers, he read the passage on the Trinity from the new Catechism as the suitable expression of their belief. And when Caroli cried out, "Away with these new Confessions; and let us sign the three ancient Creeds," Calvin, not without some show of pride, refused, on the ground that he accorded authority in divine things to the Word of God alone. "We have professed faith in God alone," he said, "not in Athanasius, whose Creed has not been approved by any properly constituted Church." His meaning is that he refused to treat any human composition as an authoritative determination of doctrine, from which we may decline only on pain of heresy: that belongs to the Word of God alone. At the subsequent Council of Lausanne he took up precisely the same position, and addressing himself more, as he says,38 ad hominem than ad rem, turned the demand that he should express his faith in the exact words of former formularies into ridicule. He was, he tells us, in what he said about the Creeds just "gibing" Caroli. Caroli had attempted to recite the Creeds and had broken down at the fourth clause of the Athanasian Symbol. You assert, Calvin said, that we cannot acceptably confess our faith except in the exact words of these ancient symbols. You have just pronounced these words from the Athanasian Creed: "Which faith whosoever doth not hold cannot be saved." You do not yourself hold this faith: and if you did, you could not express it in the exact words of the Creed. Try to repeat those words: you will infallibly again stick fast before you get through the fourth clause. Now what would you do, if you should suddenly come to die and the Devil should demand that you go to the eternal destruction which you confess awaits those who do not hold this faith whole and entire, meaning unless you express this your faith in these exact terms? And as for the Nicene Creed - is it so very certain it was composed by that Council? One would surely suppose those holy Fathers would study conciseness in so serious a matter as a creed. But see the battology here: "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God." Why this repetition - which adds neither to the emphasis nor to the expressiveness of the document? Don't you see that this is a song, more suitable for singing than to serve as a formula of confession? We may or may not think Calvin's pleasantry happy. But we certainly cannot fail to marvel when we read in even recent writers that Calvin refused to sign the Athanasian Creed because of its damnatory clauses, "which are unjust and uncharitable," and that he "depreciated the Nicene Creed." According to his own testimony, he did nothing of the kind: he "never had any intention of depreciating (abiicere) these creeds or of derogating from their credit." His sole design was to make it apparent that Caroli's insistence that only in the words of these creeds could faith in the Trinity be fitly expressed was ridiculous."


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 29, 2008)

Guido's Brother said:


> I had a second look and I see that I should not have introduced Reymond into this discussion. I agree that Reymond is revisionistic on this point.
> 
> I think I found the source where I first read about Calvin refusing to subscribe to the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. I believe it was Warfield, "Calvin's Doctrine of the Trinity." It happened in the midst of a conflict with Peter Caroli:



Wes,

Thanks for researching this! 

Godspeed,

Adam


----------



## yeutter (Jul 30, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Howdy y'all,
> 
> 
> Currently we say the so-called Apostles' and the Nicene (with the "credimus"). Personally, I'm not much for the "*We* believe" since it is a psychological impossibility. Be that as it may, what I would like to find out is:
> ...


We use all three. The Apostles Creed at Morning and Evening Prayer, The Nicene at Holy Communion. The Athanasian is used infrequently, usually at Holy Communion. The 1662 rubrics call for its use seven times a year, in place of the Apostles Creed at Morning Prayer. That is not our practice. Too bad. When it is said it is chanted by the congregation in Plainsong chat. 
We say I believe. This has to be each individuals confession of faith, not just the Churches collectively.
The Athanasian is not in the 1928 Book of Common Prayer but is commonly used in 1928 Prayerbook Parishes. It is found as a historical curiosity in the new Prayerbook.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Aug 2, 2008)

We used the Apostles Creed (occasionally), the Nicene Creed (very occasionally), and we go through a section of the Westminster Confession every week.

The original Nicene Creed uses "We believe" rather than "I believe" (Apostles' being more individual, Nicene being a corporate confession of faith). Some churches (including the 1990 TH) say "We" instead of "I". (I for one would prefer to say the Nicene every week, but that's personal preference; also use the Apostles' at baptism like they used to.)

A church I used to attend also recited the "Definition of Chalcedon", being careful to call our Lord's mother "The God-bearer" rather than "The mother of God." They also would do sections from Heidelberg, Scots Confession, and the 39 Articles, in addition to the Westminster Standards.


----------

