M
mackbrislawn
Guest
The topic of creeds and confessions is a very interesting and informative one.
The very earliest Christians of course did not have creeds. They simply believed what they had been taught by the apostles, and that was that, without thinking about it.
But as time went on, heretical and heterodox groups came along and challenged these beliefs. So, to distinguish themselves from the heretics, who taught something different, creeds were developed. In other words, we have creeds in response to heretical teachings. Creeds weren’t necessary in the earliest days but are needed now, in view of the variety of competing viewpoints for the truth. “We believe such and such, as contrasted to those nasty others, who don’t believe such and such.”
Catholics and mainline Protestants use creeds, even sharing some of them, as has been pointed out. However, congregational type churches, such as Baptist, Church of Christ, etc, attempt to shy clear of them.
But I think that attempt is artifical, and disingenuous. These groups do have their beliefs and teachings, and could easily be formalized into a creedal statement, which is a concise, formal way of expressing a set of teachings. They simply don’t do it, just so they can say they don’t have creeds!
Jehovah’s Witnesses also brag they don’t have a creed, but then in the Watchtower magazine they published what was exactly a creed, it’s just that they didn’t call it that.
The Restoration Movement has been mentioned in this thread. A Church of Christ evangelist explained the origins of his church to me this way. He spoke of a “Great Awakening” in the early 1800’s, where the founders of his movement looked about them and saw the bewildering array of different denominations and churches and they felt that this cannot be right. They asked themselves, why are there so many denominations? The answer was because of the many different man-made creeds and confessions.
They decided then to forget all those creeds, all those confessions of men. To forget what Luther wrote, what Calvin wrote, what Wesley wrote, what Athanasius wrote, simply to go “back to the Bible” with fresh and clear minds.
And so they did, as well as they were able.
Now, what is of interest to the Catholic, is that by going back to the Bible with minds clear, they arrived at understandings of soteriology, of salvation, of the meaning of baptism, etc, that are very similar to those of the Catholic church. Certainly quite different than Luther’s and Calvin’s.
Well, what are we to make of this? For one thing, it shows how strongly we are influenced in our reading of scripture by tradition, that is, by what we have been previously taught, whether we admit it or not.
When I was two-timing (heh, heh) before I crossed the Tiber, I was attending an early service at a Lutheran Church, then going to Baptist Sunday School and service, I lovingly pointed out in SS that while they didn’t utilize liturgy, the services were essentially the same every week. Welcome, one or two congregational songs, one or two solo singers, 45 minute sermon, complete with shoutin’ “Amen, brother!” a few dozen times (is that vain repetition? 