Creeds & Confessions: Good or Bad?

by   Brent Hobbs                                                                                                                                       Vol. XVI, No. 1, January 2003

[Note: Though both B. H. Carroll and Charles Wade, mentioned in the following article, were/are Texans, the point is not what is happening in Texas, though that in itself is important for Southern Baptists. The purpose is to help readers understand the fallacies and ultimate results of the silly notion of a Bible without boundaries, doctrine without definition, cooperation without confession. TCP]

B. H. Carroll, the founder of Southwestern Seminary, said the following:

“Very solemnly I would warn the reader against any teaching that decries doctrines, or which would reduce the creed of the church into two or three articles.

"We are entitled to no liberty in these matters. It is a positive and very hurtful sin to magnify liberty at the expense of doctrine. A creed is what we believe. A confession of faith is a declaration of what we believe. The church must both believe and declare. The longest creed of history is more valuable and less hurtful than the shortest. . .

"The standard is the holy Scriptures. . . Again I solemnly warn the reader against all who depreciate creeds, or who would reduce them to a minimum of entrance qualifications into the church."

Charles Wade [Executive Director of the Baptist General Convention of Texas], in his editorial "The peril of a man-made document" (Baptist Standard, Feb 11) rails against the SBC and the IMB for requiring missionaries to sign the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. Of course, the charges of replacing the Bible with a man-made document abound, but this is absurd and Wade borders on dishonesty when he charges, "Don't make it [the 2000 BFM] into a little Bible." Wade knows good and well that there is not a conservative in the SBC who would put the BFM anywhere close to the status of the Bible. Wade typifies those who would charge "No creed but the Bible!" This charge is spiritual sounding, but in the end means nothing. B. H. Carroll realized it and so the leaders in the SBC today.

History is full of examples of people who "believe the Bible," but deny its basic doctrines. People today still say "The Bible is true and trustworthy!" These same people deny the historical and scientific statements in the Bible. People today say, "The Bible contains the Word of God." These same people deny that the Bible IS the word of God. Verbal gymnastics are today's sport of choice among today's moderates and liberals who still want to be called Southern Baptists. New Olympic sports are being added every year. We look forward to the year this sport is added, for our country will no doubt stand on every step of the medal platform.

The BFM does not force people to toe the line on interpretive issues. It does not force someone to believe whether or not Paul is talking about Christian or pre-Christian experience in Romans 7:14-25. It does not force anyone to teach a pre-tribulation rapture. Signers of the 2000 BFM are allowed to explain disagreement with issues covered in the statement. There is no need for anyone to fear signing the statement unless he has doctrinal stances he is interested in hiding from the people who support him, both financially and prayerfully.

Oh how conservatives wish that we could ask "Do you believe in the Bible?" and have all of our questions answered. We know better; we've been lied to long enough. There's nothing left to hide behind. The question the BFM really asks is not, "Do you believe in the 2000 BFM?" The real question it poses is, "What do you believe about this Bible that you say you believe?" Wade is upset because his answers do not measure up.