# The use of creeds in Reformed worship



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 8, 2015)

I have a few questions concerning the use of creeds in public worship:

1. Name the Reformed churches and Reformed divines that approved the reading of creeds in public worship?

2. In light of the regulative principle of worship, how did they justify this practice?

3. Is the reading of creeds in worship contrary to the beliefs and practices of the Westminster divines, or, perhaps more importantly, contrary to the teaching of the Westminster Confession as it was received by the Church of Scotland?

If you know of any good sources that would answer these questions, please bring them to my attention.


----------



## johnny (Jul 8, 2015)

Our church is currently in transition and has dropped the reading of the WCF during services.
A practice that I would have liked to see continue. The newsletter still cycles through WCF.
A process that takes three years to complete if using both shorter and longer.

I really hope someone on here can find some evidence for this practice among the divines.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 9, 2015)

Please stay on the topic of the opening post. If anyone is confused about the view of this board and its members on the proper use of creeds, Miller's the Utility and Importance may be worth a read. https://books.google.com/books?id=m...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## KMK (Jul 9, 2015)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> 2. In light of the regulative principle of worship, how did they justify this practice?



How can a church worship without the use of creeds? There could be no corporate prayer, preaching, song, or sacrament without the presence of "We believe..." The Regulative Principle assumes creeds, therefore, no justification of the reading of them is necessary.


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 9, 2015)

KMK said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> > 2. In light of the regulative principle of worship, how did they justify this practice?
> ...



You are referencing it seems the Bible. Daniel seems to be talking about Creeds that are not Scripture. Examples being the Apostle's Creed, Nicene, etc.


----------



## timfost (Jul 9, 2015)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> 2. In light of the regulative principle of worship, how did they justify this practice?



WCF 21.5 might apply, since the reading of creeds would fall under "the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the Word..." Since creeds are a topical, systematic approach to scriptural interpretation, it seems appropriate that they should be incorporated into worship as a part of the proclamation of the Word.


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 9, 2015)

timfost said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> > 2. In light of the regulative principle of worship, how did they justify this practice?
> ...



But that is not true. Sound Preaching is not 'reading of creeds'. It is preaching the Word of God. Preaching and reading of Scripture is not reading of creeds, it cannot be. It is by definition not because it is the reading/preaching of Scripture. Creeds are not Scripture. And who is to read and preach the Scriptures?

*Q. 156. Is the Word of God to be read by all?*
A.Although all are not to be permitted to read the Word publicly to the congregation, yet all sorts of people are bound to read it apart by themselves, and with their families: to which end, the holy scriptures are to be translated out of the original into vulgar languages.
*Q. 158. By whom is the Word of God to be preached?*
A. The Word of God is to be preached only by such as are sufficiently gifted, and also duly approved and called to that office.

Ones called to a particular office are to read and preach the Word of God. But in the recitation of creeds, it is not the Word and it is done by all the congregation. Seeing recitation by all the congregation as the reading and preaching of the Word would be contrary to the WLC, and thus in contradiction to Westminster Standards as a whole.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 9, 2015)

Miller's previously cited work also available here in easier to read format:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/creeds...f-creeds-and-confessions-by-dr-samuel-miller/


----------



## timfost (Jul 9, 2015)

Romans922 said:


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > Reformed Covenanter said:
> ...



Not sure if the WLC quotes apply to congressional reading... I'm also not persuaded that congressional reading of creeds is contrary to the standards, though they don't spell out their necessity.

This link below may be of some help.

http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=496

I'd also be interested in hearing from someone more knowledgeable than me on this issue...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 9, 2015)

timfost said:


> congressional reading



I think you mean congregational.


----------



## Edward (Jul 9, 2015)

Confession of Faith in Worship 
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/33197-Confession-of-Faith-in-Worship

Poll (almost even split) and discussion:
RPW: Are we commanded to recite parts of Confessions or Creeds in Worship? 
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthr...ite-parts-of-Confessions-or-Creeds-in-Worship

RPW and the reading of Confessions/Creeds 
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/8358-RPW-and-the-reading-of-Confessions-Creeds

And a number of other related discussions:
http://www.puritanboard.com/google....search.php?searchid=6273899&ss=3306j914894j17


----------



## MW (Jul 9, 2015)

In terms of the regulative principle, reciting a creed is not instituted by God, therefore it has no warrant. The church's commission is to teach the people to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded. Christ has never commanded people to recite creeds.

In terms of circumstance and prudence, requiring people to recite a creed while still in process of learning the faith is a violation of conscience as it requires implicit faith. To add it as a circumstance of preaching would destroy one of the objects of preaching.

In terms of the elements of worship, the singing of inspired Psalms is already a confession of faith on the part of the congregation, so an uninspired creed will only serve to supplant a divine form of words with an human one.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Jul 9, 2015)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > congressional reading
> ...



Gotta love auto-"correct".


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jul 10, 2015)

Daniel,


Regarding the use of creeds in the Scottish Church:

The apostle's creed was used in the service book of John Knox from 1560 (or so) onward in Scotland. George Sprott (late 1800's Scot who was for lots of liturgical stuff) argues that one of the qualifying statements of the Church of Scotland in receiving the Westminster documents was intended to allow for the continuance of the Apostle's Creed in worship (despite its absence in the Westminster documents), which in some places was done. However, the Protestors took it out at the split in 1652. The history of it after that, I would have to dig a bit more to accurately describe.


George Sprott, _The Worship of the Church of Scotland, During the Covenanting Period, 1638-1661_, 1893, Edinburgh, p. 47

As to worship they [the Scottish ‘Protestors’ between 1652-60]… introduced Fast Days and extra preaching days at the administration of the Lord’s Supper. They no doubt stopped the use of the Creed and witnesses at baptism, and they appear to have introduced the exposition of the opening psalm [that was sung]…”​

Blessings.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 10, 2015)

Thanks, Travis. That is a start at least.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jul 10, 2015)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I have a few questions concerning the use of creeds in public worship:
> ...
> 2. In light of the regulative principle of worship, how did they justify this practice?
> ...
> ...




Daniel,


I have written up a brief defense of the position that creeds are not an element of worship. Here it is for your consideration:


Creeds are not an Element of Worship, 16 paragraphs​

I hope it may be helpful. Lord willing, I will be adding much more to the historical quotes on the page down the road. It is only a beginning.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 10, 2015)

Travis Fentiman said:


> Daniel,
> 
> 
> I have written up a brief defense of the position that creeds are not an element of worship. Here it is for your consideration:
> ...



Thanks; I have read it. The case against reading creeds is fairly straight-forward, i.e. it is not commanded, therefore it is forbidden. Now what I want to know is why did various other staunch defenders of the RPW disagree with this position. For what it is worth, I have never been convinced that reading creeds as an element of worship was congruous with the RPW. I would not, however, want to rashly condemn other Reformed worthies without hearing their side of the argument.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Afterthought (Jul 10, 2015)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Now what I want to know is why did various other staunch defenders of the RPW disagree with this position.


I don't know the historical reasons, but the usual reason I've heard is that reciting creeds is a part of "lawful oaths and vows." A couple of the threads linked earlier show an example of this line of reasoning.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 11, 2015)

Afterthought said:


> I don't know the historical reasons, but the usual reason I've heard is that reciting creeds is a part of "lawful oaths and vows." A couple of the threads linked earlier show an example of this line of reasoning.



Thanks. I have only read through one of the threads that Edward highlighted; I will try to read the others later today.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jul 11, 2015)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> ...
> Now what I want to know is why did various other staunch defenders of the RPW disagree with this position... I would not, however, want to rashly condemn other Reformed worthies without hearing their side of the argument.




As far as modern conservative arguments of creeds in worship, Morton Smith has argued for it (here are some of his works that include the argument), as well as others. They usually argue any of the following ways:

1. Creeds are found in the Bible, therefore they should be in our worship

2. A creed was in worship in Deut. 26, therefore the general element of a creed crosses over into New Testament worship. 

3. Creeds are simply a form of the element of teaching, and as teaching can take any variety of forms, therefore reading of creeds is one of those forms. This is following the looser view of the RPW as is common today (being taught by Frame, Poythress, Bahnsen and virtually every reformed seminary in America), as opposed to the older notion of the RPW that every element has its peculiar regulations (for instance in Gillespie, etc.).

4. or, that reading creeds is a form of lawful oaths and vows (as was mentioned by others above). This of course, is contrary to the WCF, which distinguishes confessions in ch. 1 and oaths and vows in a later chapter.​
I implicitly address all of these arguments in my article linked above.


The historical reasons why older reformed folk sometimes used creeds is a bit harder to discern. The biggest influence was probably Calvin and Geneva who used the Apostle's Creed in worship. If my memory serves from reading Calvin's Institutes 12 years, he does not give any Biblical warrant for using the creed in worship, but only considerations from the practice of the early church, and trying to restore the purity of early church worship. I remember thinking at the time that that wasn't the most solid argument.

The RPW in the original 1500's form, seemed to have been more in broad principles. It wasn't until further time went by, and more innovations came, that the later puritans started narrowing the requirements and used more specific arguments for some of the details. 


As far as the reason why the WCF does not consider Creeds to be an element of worship, this is the only official reason given:


Alex Mitchell and John Struthers, Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly of Divines (Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1874), p. 21​
Session 342, Dec. 16, 1644

Ordered—That Dr. Burgess inform the Honorable Houses of Parliament that the reason why the Assembly have sent up nothing in the Directory concerning the Creed and the Ten Commandments, is because they reserve it for the Directory for catechizing, where they conceive it will be most proper.[1]

[1] See Journals of House of Lords, vol. vii. P. 103​

I dug into the history a bit more, and hopefully will write up my findings shortly in a paper. Here is the broad stroke, tentative outline for the Church of Scotland:

The Apostle's Creed was a part of Scottish worship from the reformation (1560), through the influence of Knox to at least the second reformation of 1638, if not 1645. Knox more than likely got it from Calvin.

The adoption of the Westminster Directory for Worship (1645) largely ceased the practice of the creed in worship (though there is always variety of detail). Some of the presbyterians were upset (Robert Baillie and others), others were willing to accommodate for uniformity (Gillespie and others). Much of the cutting out of the creed by Westminster was blamed on the English Independents, who, many of which, didn't like creeds altogether, much less in worship.

The Protestors, 1652, got rid of whatever was left of creedal practice in worship till 1660.

At the episcopal Restoration of Charles II, creeds were brought back in, though the presbyterians at this time detested it.

At the Revolution Settlement of 1690, the old Protesters had the majority and got rid of creeds in worship. It appears to have stayed that way through the 1700's, as William Steuart of Pardovan mentions nothing of them.

There is evidence in the late 1800's Scotland that creeds still were not a part of worship, though that shortly changed with the revival of high church liturgy. 
​

Hope this may be helpful.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 11, 2015)

Travis Fentiman said:


> Hope this may be helpful.



Yes, it was. I have heard it argued that the omission of creeds was owing to the influence of Brownism. Perhaps it was, but this argument is an _ad hominen_ attack. The Brownists may not necessarily have been wrong on everything. Conversely, we should be slow to abandon a practice supported by such divines as John Calvin and Robert Baillie. But, if there is no biblical support for the practice, then it needs to be abandoned.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 11, 2015)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> and Robert Baillie.


Then again, Baillie was also unhappy that bowing in the pulpit was abandoned. 
Maybe I misread, but wasn't the question of Scottish practice and debate in the WA over the limited use of the Creed in the baptismal vow? So it is not an unlimited liturgical use as far as pre-1645?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 11, 2015)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> > and Robert Baillie.
> ...



I could probably have cited a better example than Robert Baillie.  Seriously, though, such name-dropping only reminds me that orthodoxy is to be defined by the confessions, and not by the personal opinions of individual divines. I am afraid that I do not currently know enough of the history to properly answer your question.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jul 11, 2015)

NaphtaliPress said:


> ...
> Maybe I misread, but wasn't the question of Scottish practice and debate in the WA over the limited use of the Creed in the baptismal vow? So it is not an unlimited liturgical use as far as pre-1645?




Chris, you are very correct to point out the distinction of using the Apostle's Creed as a confession for parents (or sponsors) baptizing a kid, and from the secondary sources I've read, that was mixed in thoughout the 1500's and 1600's. Sometimes the 'conservatives' would not allow it as an element of worship but conceded for it to be used with baptism. That makes the history of it much more complex.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jul 11, 2015)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> ...I have heard it argued that the omission of creeds was owing to the influence of Brownism. Perhaps it was, but this argument is an _ad hominen_ attack. The Brownists may not necessarily have been wrong on everything... But, if there is no biblical support for the practice, then it needs to be abandoned.




Most of the secondary sources I have seen make out the lion's share of the responsibility for the creed being dropped from worship at Westminster due to Brownist and consequent English Independent ideas and practice, which are usually stated to be an irrational over-reaction to Rome and human-made things (such as the creed). This is essentially the line of reasoning given in: 

Horton Davies, The Worship of the English Puritans, 1948, reprinted Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1997, p. 273-277​
Which has a whole appendix on Puritans and Creeds.

My suspicion though, is that this is simplistic. It does not explain all the evidence. The Scottish covenanting Protesters (Rutherford, Guthrie, Binning, Johnston, P. Gillespie, etc) had absolutely no sympathies with Brownism or Independancy, obviously recognized the legitimacy of creeds, and yet they threw them out of worship as well. 


Anyway, reformed history is so diverse on the topic (more than most topics, perhaps), that you certainly are correct that we should look to scripture instead of the fluctuating waters of historical opinion. But, I do like to establish the Biblical view from church history as much as possible 


Blessings.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jul 12, 2015)

MW said:


> In terms of the regulative principle, reciting a creed is not instituted by God, therefore it has no warrant. The church's commission is to teach the people to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded. Christ has never commanded people to recite creeds.
> 
> In terms of circumstance and prudence, *requiring people to recite a creed while still in process of learning the faith is a violation of conscience as it requires implicit faith*. To add it as a circumstance of preaching would destroy one of the objects of preaching.
> 
> In terms of the elements of worship, the singing of inspired Psalms is already a confession of faith on the part of the congregation, so an uninspired creed will only serve to supplant a divine form of words with an human one.



Perhaps a bit of a rabbit trail, but how is this (the bold section) prinicipally distinguished from the federal nature of ministerial prayer? In other words, when the minister prays on behalf of congregants in uninspired words, is there not an expectation of assent (if non-verbal) on behalf of the congregant to the minister's confession or plea? It seems like there is a similar effect here, is the difference simply that prayer is an element and has biblical warrant to bind the conscience thus? 

On the practical side, how is the congregant supposed to react when the minister prays on the congregation's behalf for something the congregant believes is unbiblical (e.g. providing more volunteer musicians for worship)? There is little doubt the conscience is pricked there.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jul 12, 2015)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> > and Robert Baillie.
> ...



Perhaps his work has been superceded or controverted here, but Charles Baird in his Eutaxia claims that the Creed was used not only in sacramental services (especially with the Lord's Supper) but frequently in the ordinary Lord's Day service in both the pre-WA Scottish church and in the Dutch Reformed churches:



> The
> ancient practice of the Dutch and Scottish Churches was (as it
> now is that of the Continental Churches), to rehearse the Creed
> not only on sacramental occasions, but in the principal service
> ...


----------



## MW (Jul 12, 2015)

TheOldCourse said:


> Perhaps a bit of a rabbit trail, but how is this (the bold section) prinicipally distinguished from the federal nature of ministerial prayer? In other words, when the minister prays on behalf of congregants in uninspired words, is there not an expectation of assent (if non-verbal) on behalf of the congregant to the minister's confession or plea? It seems like there is a similar effect here, is the difference simply that prayer is an element and has biblical warrant to bind the conscience thus?



To relate this back to the element of preaching, the rule is the same as that which applies to prophecy -- one is to speak and the others are to examine what is said. This is basically what should happen in prayer as well.

When the congregation is delivered from the imposition of uninspired forms there is a freedom to exercise sound judgment and come to that unfeigned faith which is the end of the commandment.


----------



## MW (Jul 12, 2015)

With regard to secondary source material, in the nineteenth century there was a deliberate movement away from what was considered "bare worship" within Presbyterianism. These authors naturally looked to earlier reformed precedent to establish their case for liturgies and set forms of prayer, and they sometimes misapplied the primary sources. I am not saying that is necessarily the case here, but caution should be used when looking at secondary sources.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jul 12, 2015)

MW said:


> TheOldCourse said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps a bit of a rabbit trail, but how is this (the bold section) prinicipally distinguished from the federal nature of ministerial prayer? In other words, when the minister prays on behalf of congregants in uninspired words, is there not an expectation of assent (if non-verbal) on behalf of the congregant to the minister's confession or plea? It seems like there is a similar effect here, is the difference simply that prayer is an element and has biblical warrant to bind the conscience thus?
> ...



Yeah I see that, but there does seem to be a different relationship with respect to prayer. With preaching/prophecy, the minister is speaking as the mouthpiece of God (albeit fallibly in the case of a sermon) to the people and the people are recipients. Their responsibility is to examine, ponder, and apply. With prayer, there is a congregational solidarity with the minister as he prays, representing the congregation to God. There is the same expectation of consent and concordance as there would be with a creed (indeed, many Reformed ministers use creedal elements in prayers depending on the prayer's liturgical role), the only difference is whether it's verbalized. That's important liturgically, but is it such a drastic difference with respect to the demands on the conscience?

Of course, binding the conscience is not always inappropriate, it's done every time the Word is preached. Prayer being an element would suggest it is appropriate there too, I'm just struggling to understand why creeds would be wrong because of their demands on the conscience _per se_ even as I agree that on RPW terms they are unjustified.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jul 12, 2015)

MW said:


> With regard to secondary source material, in the nineteenth century there was a deliberate movement away from what was considered "bare worship" within Presbyterianism. These authors naturally looked to earlier reformed precedent to establish their case for liturgies and set forms of prayer, and they sometimes misapplied the primary sources. I am not saying that is necessarily the case here, but caution should be used when looking at secondary sources.



Agreed, that's why I put forth his works with something of a caveat. His sympathies seem to be somewhat high churchly. Nevertheless, he republishes sections from Calvin, Knox, and Richard Baxter which include the Creed, although his case for it's continued use in Scottish liturgy seems to be based on an assumption that they stuck to Knox's Genevan liturgy until the WA rather than any actual exemplars of the liturgies. 

I should say I'm not particularly on the side of creeds in public worship, I just was reading the above work for other reasons and came across some such comments that were relevant to this topic and interesting from a historical perspective.


----------



## MW (Jul 12, 2015)

TheOldCourse said:


> With prayer, there is a congregational solidarity with the minister as he prays, representing the congregation to God.



As the community of faith the congregation expresses the same solidarity with regard to the preaching of the Word. So there is no difference here. The necessity of discernment comes down to the fact the minister does not infallibly preach the Word. In the same way, he does not always pray as he ought. So discernment is just as necessary in prayer. Our Lord has spoken of agreement in prayer as a condition of something else. It is not a given.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jul 12, 2015)

MW said:


> TheOldCourse said:
> 
> 
> > With prayer, there is a congregational solidarity with the minister as he prays, representing the congregation to God.
> ...



That is true, I stand corrected on that point. I'll think about that some more. 

As I understand what you're saying, the active cooperative reciting of a creed preempts the chance for reflection and discernment and is thus a requirement of implicit faith. But if the preached Word is to be received as the very Word of God, if ministerial preaching is authoritative (albeit fallibly), it still seems like there must be an _immediate_ demand on the conscience to assent, prior to the opportunity to exercise discernment, there as well. That's, in part, why the RPW forbids liturgical practices which are not commanded in Scriptures even if they do not require active participation on the part of the congregations (e.g. skits, videos, etc.), no? That's why it's hard for me to understand an objection to creedal recitation based on how it affects the conscience rather than the objection based on whether its effect on the conscience is a justifiable (by express Scriptural warrant) one.


----------



## MW (Jul 12, 2015)

TheOldCourse said:


> it still seems like there must be an _immediate_ demand on the conscience to assent, prior to the opportunity to exercise discernment, there as well.



"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."


----------



## richardnz (Jul 25, 2015)

Reformed churches that follow Calvin's practice of reciting the Apostles Creed make assenting to the Creed a condition of full membership in the church. Such churches therefore do not have to consider 'implicit faith' as an issue when members are reciting the Creed.

One of the original questions was:-

“2. In light of the regulative principle of worship, how did they justify this practice?”

I assume that the question is asking how they based this practice on scripture. I cannot point to any particular instance of reasoning from scripture on this issue by Calvin or others, but we know from their writings on other issues to do with worship that they were concerned to avoid adding ceremonies without biblical warrant. For example:-

“Moreover, the rule which distinguishes between pure and vitiated worship is of universal application, in order that we may not adopt any device which seems fit to ourselves, but look to the injunction of Him who alone is entitled to prescribe. Therefore, if we would have Him to approve our worship, this rule, which he everywhere enforces with the utmost strictness, must be carefully observed.” John Calvin “The Necessity of Reforming the Church”

One of the major concerns for the Reformers was the restoration of congregational participation in worship, and so it is only natural that consideration was given as to how best to respond to God, and those responses Calvin called “prayers”. There is no explicit command for the minister to lead in prayer, or the congregation to pray in unison, but as is the case with many things to do with worship we look to “good and necessary consequence” to work out what to do and so both methods of prayer can be said to have scriptural warrant. Once we start looking at the Psalms as a model for the prayers of the congregation we can see that there is a considerable variety of responses. We see David's psalms are not strictly prayers in the sense of requests, but include lamentation, confession of sin, recitation of history, some are statements of doctrine, exhortations to the faithful, promises of obedience, recounting the deeds of God etc. As long as we are running on the rails provided by the Psalms and other occasions in scripture where the people responded to God in worship we can be confident He is pleased with what we do.


----------

