# The Biblical and Logical Necessity of Uninspired Creeds



## RamistThomist (Jul 19, 2005)

I found this at John Thomas Cripps's Church

HANS: We're studying the Westminster Confession of Faith. Want to join us? 

FRANZ: No; I don't give heed to the words of men like you do. 

H: What do you mean? 

F: I go by the Bible. I can't rely on the words of mere uninspired men. 

H: Me, too. That's why we're studying the Confession. You should join us; it'd be very edifying. 

F: Wait a minute. I just told you that I only go by the Bible, and yet you have just equated the study of this Westminster Confession with a study of the Scriptures! 

H: And as I just said, I only go by the Bible, too. So, I'm not going to pay any attention to what you've just said. You're not inspired, after all. 

F: Of course I'm not inspired; but what I said was right because it was BIBLICAL. 

H: How could it be biblical if it was merely what you -- an uninspired man -- told me? I only listen to the inspired words of the Bible. Isn't it lording it over my conscience to tell me to accept your uninspired words as though they were the very inspired words of God? 

F: Oh, come on. I may not have quoted chapter and verse, but I was telling you what the Bible MEANS. That's why you have to pay attention to it. 

H: Are you saying the meaning of the Bible, even if explained in the uninspired words of uninspired men, is still binding -- in fact, as binding as the very words written in the Bible? 

F: Well, yes, that is what I'm saying. The meaning of the Bible, though stated in different words, has the same authority as the exact words found there. And since I'm telling you that the meaning of the Bible is not to give heed to the uninspired words of men, you still have to receive it as though those exact words I've spoken were written in the pages of Scripture. 

H: Wait a minute. How is what you've just said any different from the Westminster Confession? After all, the writers of the Confession were only putting forth what they thought was the meaning of the Bible. 

F: Well, er. . . umm. . . . 

H: I know of one difference: they were all preeminently qualified to expound the Word of God. They were recognized as having these gifts by the various churches that delegated them to sit at the Westminster Assembly. Any scholar who knows anything about Protestant history knows that these men were the "cream of the crop", and that almost certainly there has never been since that time (and maybe even up to that time, except for the apostles themselves) one body containing so many godly and learned men. I don't think you possess the same qualifications, at least not yet. 

F: Hmmm, good point. 

H: Furthermore, the Holy Spirit says in Ephesians 4 that Christ has given to the church teachers as a powerful and necessary means to building up the body of Christ into "a perfect or complete man." Obviously, these teachers do not have the gift of inspiration, and yet the Spirit didn't view this as a challenge to the sufficiency of Scripture, but rather as a necessary outgrowth of it. This is because he desires that we know the meaning of the Bible, not just the bare words. As R.L. Dabney said, "He who would consistently banish creeds must silence all preaching and reduce the teaching of the church to the recital of the exact words of Holy Scripture without note or comment." 

And, just because these men lived in the past doesn't mean that they're not a gift from God to us today. The Bible everywhere speaks of the church as one body throughout all history (Gal. 3:23-24; 4:1-3; Ps. 66:6; Hos. 12:4; Deut. 5:2-3). Therefore, the astute teachers of the past are our teachers as well, thanks to God's gracious preservation of their writings. Actually, because these men were on the crest of the waves of reformation, and not in the trough of apostasy as we are today, we ought to pay more attention to them than to contemporary teachers. This is because all of us -- including our teachers -- have been blinded by our culture's wretched and extreme departure from the Lord Jesus Christ. 

F: What time did you say you were meeting? I believe the meaning of Scripture requires that I attend!


----------



## Poimen (Jul 19, 2005)

Yep.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 19, 2005)

Way to go, Hans!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 20, 2005)

That's one tough German!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 20, 2005)

Great expose'.


----------



## cupotea (Jul 20, 2005)

Wait a minute, that's all well and good for the Westminster Confession, but what about other confessions? I agree with the WCF because I think it interprets God's message correctly, not because it was written by smart guys at a council. Hans hasn't explained why these particular guys were right! An Anglican Hans (Henry?!) could make the same arguments for whatever the Anglican confession of faith is, and totally mislead Frank!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 21, 2005)

In the words of the WCF, Chap. 1:



> X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined; and in whose sentence we are to rest; can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.(z)
> 
> (z) Matt. 22:29, 31; Eph. 2:20 with Acts 28:25.



Clearly, creeds have to be tested against God's Word for them to be authoritative. They are subordinate to God's Word and their authority extends only insofar as they are consistent with and agreable to God's Word. There are good creeds and there are not-so-good creeds. Most people on this Board would acknowledge that they take exception to portions of their particular authoritative creed (I personally adhere without exceptions to the entirety of the 1646 WCF). In the case of the Anglican Church, the 39 Articles is a very Reformed creed, albeit there are unReformed aspects relating to church polity and worship, the Apocrypha, etc. Dabney drew the parallel between sermons and creeds. There are good sermons and not-so-good sermons. We test everything by the Word of God. Therefore, with respect to the 39 Articles and those portions that I say are "unReformed" it because those particular aspects are inconsistent with the Word of God, the supreme judge of such controversies. You're right, in the conversation set before us, Hans does not explain in detail why the WCF is consistent with God's Word. But he did invite Franz to study the Confession and see for himself. Each one of us is bound to be like Bereans (Acts 17.10-11) and see whether these things are so.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Cottonball_
> Wait a minute, that's all well and good for the Westminster Confession, but what about other confessions? I agree with the WCF because I think it interprets God's message correctly, not because it was written by smart guys at a council. Hans hasn't explained why these particular guys were right! An Anglican Hans (Henry?!) could make the same arguments for whatever the Anglican confession of faith is, and totally mislead Frank!



ACtuallly, that is a brilliant observation that is not taken too seriously by many advocates of Creeds and Confessions, myself included. I can't give you a full answer now but here is my take on it. Confessions are to be judged transcendentally. Does the creed cohere with the Bible?


----------



## Scott (Jul 21, 2005)

The conversation is perhaps true as far as it goes but it falls a bit short in my opinion. The problem is that it treats the creeds as simply persuasive, not authoritative. It is akin to ordinary speech by private individuals that happens to coincide with biblical truth. Conciliar decisions are much more than that. The WCF provides that conciliar decisions ". . . if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, *but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his Word*."

Note that the decisions of councils are to be received not only because they are consistent with the Word (ie. Hanz and Franz' informal conversation can be consistent with the Word) but "also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his Word" - an authority or power that the conversation of Hanz and Franz does not have.

Note that conciliar decisions have real authority. And this authority extends beyond being mere guidance or persuasion (i.e. they are more than "helpful" - they are binding). There is a duty to follow these decisions. Like nearly all authority structures (parents, civil government, etc.), this duty is qualified. Yet it is real. To reject these authorities is to be a revolutionary. There are times for this but they are rare and the revolutionary had better be right.

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by Scott]


----------

