The Nicene Creed and Baptist Orthodoxy
For the Ever-growing Concern of the Southern Baptist Convention
John Gill - Defender of Trinitarian Baptist Orthodoxy
Opening
God bless you all! I write this blog as sort of an emergency toward a current issue with the Baptist denomination. My concern currently is that a large swathe of Baptists have been ill informed regarding the subscription of ancient creeds as well as looking at church history as a whole (another topic for another time). Specifically in the Nicene Creed I have seen that many have had issues and concerns regarding phrases and terminologies being used. For that reason, many have taken the route to be hesitant because it’s ‘too Catholic’.
I will admit that this controversy as a whole has been a result of poor leadership on part of many baptist churches, and an ignorance and unwillingness on the part of the laity to read and engage themselves in the world of theology. These knee-jerk reactions at hissing at anything liturgical or historical feeds the ignorance of the common people into thinking that it is possible to interpret scripture without learned and tried saints of the past already looking and engaging with these issues. God has given His church 2000 years to work with, to hand-wave all of this information would be a disservice to all those who were called in the creation of translations, commentaries, systematic theologies, polemics, and apologies.
[As a result of this, I am currently creating a list of videos which will be under a series called Baptist Catechesis which will introduce each topic of theology into a dense but ye apprehensive manner.]
Objective
With this in mind, it is my plea for all Baptists apart of the Southern Baptist Convention to take this small entry in mind when formulating your decision about whether to affirm the Creed into the Southern Baptist Faith and Message. I have below three main reasons:
1. History and Background of the Creed
This controversy’s conception can be attributed to Arius who was a Bishop of Ptolemais (A.D 256-336) who began to teach his students and his parishioners that Jesus was a created by the Father but yet as a divine and distinct being from the Father. Doctrine of his spread throughout North Africa, Asia Minor and parts of Europe. In May of 325 A.D, a council was called (not controlled) by the Emperor Constantine regarding a major controversy within the Church concerning the deity of Jesus Christ. The two major parties: Arians (followers of Arius) and the Catholic bishops (representing the traditional and biblical understanding). After a series of debates, the council condemned Arius and his followers as heretical and were banished from all of the Catholic Church’s areas. From what followed was a defined document of belief for all Christians willing to hold to the Christian faith on the deity of Jesus (the Nicene Creed).
Here is a general rule of thumb (there are of course exceptions which we will see) between Creeds and confessions,
Creeds are what all Christians MUST believe (necessary for salvation and order in a church).
Confessions are what all Christians SHOULD believe (necessary for good order in a church).
For more reading on this controversy visit the footnote here.1
The Creed
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And we believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
And we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
For the Scriptural support of each of these sayings and phrases refer here.2
2. Acceptance of the Creed in the Baptist tradition
Prior to the rise of the Baptists (both General and Reformed) there was always a general acceptance by all Christian societies to the three major creeds (Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian). Whether you were a Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox, these documents served as a uniting factor between all traditions of whether the professing person passes the bare minimum litmus test of all the necessary components of the Christian faith. The Baptists are no different in this manner. Ever since their rise in the late 17th century, there was always a concern in the preservation of Trinitarian and orthodoxy. Dissenting on a major doctrine such as infant baptism and conformity of the Church of England did not provide an excuse for the Baptists to neglect the necessity of diligence in historic Christian theology and practice.
Thomas Grantham and his “St. Paul’s Catechism” 1687
Thomas Grantham was one of the most influential General Baptist theologians of his day. Many of his writings range from instructing children in the faith to a systematic theology defending and purporting his views contrary to many paedobaptist and non-conforming sects of his day. One of his greatest concerns and necessities was the retaining of the ancient creeds of the Church. He says to the child,
“And that thou mayest know how this Great Mystery was understood by the Ancient Church, about 1400 Years ago, I will here shew thee their Confession of Faith, published by a very great Council of the Christians in those daies, wherein were 318 Pastors of the Church, who thus profess their Faith.”3
His child responds,
“I much reverence this ancient Confession of Faith, for it's excellent Brevity, and especially for the solidity of the Matter. But I desire you to shew me what Scripture-Evidence we have for some things contained in the second Article, where it says, The Son of God was begotten before all Worlds.”4
The catechism continues by breaking down the rest of the creed. In the third section we will see what he says about the ‘controversial’ wording and his unwavering exegesis.
Benjamin Keach
Benjamin Keach was a formidable Particular Baptist (Calvinistic Baptist) in his day writing more extensively than that of Grantham. He largely drew his theological framework and heritage from the Presbyterian and Congregationalist tradition regarding election, decree, depravity, perseverance etc. Keach also made a few catechisms throughout his life, one of them landing them before the court of England. The reason for his trial? His political views (Fifth Monarchism) and credobaptism. In his trial, there is a dialogue between the judge and Keach regarding the nature of his catechism.
Judge: What have you to do to take other men’s trades out of their hands? I believe you can preach as well as write books. Thus it is to let you, and such as you are, have the scriptures to wrest to your own destruction. You have made in your book a new creed; I have, seen three creeds before; but I never saw a fourth till you made one.
Keach. I have not made a creed, but a confession of the Christian faith.
Judge. Well, that is a creed, then.
Keach. Your Lordship said you had never seen but three creeds ; but thousands of Christians have made a confession of their faith.5
Here Keach is defending his primmer from being a creed by distinguishing the nature of both documents. As mentioned previously,
Creeds are what all Christians MUST believe (necessary for salvation and order in a church).
Confessions are what all Christians SHOULD believe (necessary for good order in a church).
Keach retaining this language affirms that there are only three creeds (Apostles’, Athanasian, Nicene). Later in his trial appears this line of dialogue,
Clerk. Also in another place thou hast wickedly and maliciously composed A short Confession of Faith, in which thou hast affrmed thus, concerning the second person in the Blessed Trinity, in these plain English words, "I also believe that he rose again the third day from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and there now sitteth at the right hand of God the father; and from thence he shall come again at the appointed time of the father, to reign personally upon the earth, and to be the Judge of the quick and the dead.
Judge. This is contrary to our creed: for whereas he saith, "From thence he shall come again at the appointed time of the father, to reign personally upon the earth, and to be Judge both, of the quick and the dead;” our creed only saith, "From thence he shall come to judge both the quick and the dead."6
From his writings, Keach is being accused of adding to the Apostles Creed in which he adds Christ’s personal reign upon the earth. This means that he held to the skeletal form of the Creed with a few of his personal additions. Why would Keach go out of his way for affirming something apparently misconstrued as too "Roman Catholic”? The answer is because this was never the historic position.
Thomas Monck’s Orthodox Creed of 1679
Thomas Monck was another General Baptist who was heavily invested in the exposition of the traditional and historic understanding of the Trinity and Christology. He was the author of “The Cure for the Cankering Error” which was a refutation of the heretic Matthew Caffyn and his neo-Eutychian errors concerning the nature of Christ (denying the human incarnation and affirming the assumption of ‘celestial flesh’). He was also known for the Orthodox Creed with is a comprehensive summary of the beliefs taught and held by a number of churches in England.
XXXVIII. Article Of the Three Creeds.
THe Three Creeds, (viz.) Nicene Creed, Athanasius his Creed, and the Apostles Creed, (as they are commonly called) ought throughly to be received, and believed. For we believe they may be proved by most undoubted Authority of holy Scripture, and are necessary to be understood of all Christians; and to be instructed in the knowledg of them, by the Ministers of Christ, according to the Analogie of Faith, recorded in sacred Scriptures (upon which these Creeds are grounded), and Catechistically opened, and expounded in all Christian Families, for the edification of Young and Old; which might be a means to prevent Heresie in Doctrine, and Practice, these Creeds containing all things in a brief manner, that are necessary to be known, fundamentally, in order to our Salvation; to which end they may be considered, and better understood of all Men, we have here Printed them under their several Titles as followeth, (viz.)7
Note here Monck does not hold the Creeds as superior in essence either in authority or in content above the Scripture but rather vice-versa. It is the scripture which the Creeds rest upon. Yet he also maintains that they are necessary to be understood of all Christians. After writing an extensive refutation against Christological heresy, who wouldn’t add this exhortation!
Then the Orthodox Creed lists out the ecumenical creeds with no hesistation. I will note here that the ‘one baptism for the remission of sins’ clause is not listed here either because they confessed an earlier edition of the Creed or that they did not want to list again what was already listed in the Apostles Creed or they just mainly focused on the Christological portion. Regardless, they still maintain the ‘Catholick church’ clause in their statement showing no issue with the phrase.
Charles Spurgeon’s Exposition on Acts 15:11
I. We shall use the text as concisely as we can for three important purposes; and in the first place, we shall look upon it as AN APOSTOLICAL CONFESSION OF FAITH.
You notice it begins with, “We believe” We will call it, then, the “Apostle’s Creed,” and we may rest assured that it has quite as clear a right to that title as that highly esteemed composition which is commonly called the “Nicene, or Apostle’s Creed.”
Spurgeon the great (even last) Baptist puritan of our time even gave his sentiment toward the Nicene Creed without hesitation!
3. Catholic?
And we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. - Nicene Creed
The term catholic church has been used of each tradition in two senses, one institutionally and the other spiritually.
Catholic--The word comes from the Greek meaning "through the whole," that is "universal," "world-wide," "all inclusive."
Spiritual - The catholic church consists of every regenerate member of Christ’s spiritual body.
Institutional - The catholic church consists of a physical organization of regenerate members where the word is preached, sacraments are given, and discipline enacted.
3. One baptism for the remission of sins?
We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins - Nicene Creed
An equal concern that Baptists may have affirming the creed is the clause ‘one baptism for the remission of sins’. However I and many of our Baptist forefathers as mentioned previously have no issue with this.
Grantham explains,
Son: Why is the word BAPTISMS used in this place? Are there more Baptisms than one pertaining to Christians?
Father: Yes, there are three distinct Baptisms pertaining to the Christian Man. The first is the Baptism of Repentance for remission of Sins; This was of divine Original, it came from Heaven, and was first administred by that great Prophet and Messenger of Christ, John the Baptist, Mat. 21. 25.
The second, is the pouring out of the Spirit of promise; and in the ordinary way of its reception, follows the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of Sins. Act. 1. 5. & 2. 38. & 19. 5, 6. Ephes. 1. 13.
The third is the Afflictions which attend Christians for the Gospel's-sake, Luk. 12. 50. Mat. 20. 22.
Son: I confess, the mistake of the Quakers, and some others, is hereby discovered; I see indeed a threefold Baptism, I would learn them in every part: And there fore I desire to know what God requires of all that are to be baptised into Christ according to his Command.
Father: God requires the substance of the two foregoing Principles, of all that are to be baptised with the Baptism of Repentance, for the remission of Sins. Repent, and be baptised every one of you, Act. 2. 38. They that gladly received the Word, were baptised, Act. 2. 41. When they believed, &c. they were baptised, both Men and Women, Act. 8. 12. In true Baptism, we are dead with Christ, buried with Christ, and risen with Christ, Rom. 6. 1, to 7. Colos. 2. 11, 12, 13. We are all the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Jesus; for as many as have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ, Gal. 3. 26, 27.
As Grantham acknowledges, the baptism for the remission of sins is scriptural language taken from Acts 2:38,
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Now how do we understand the scriptural text given before us? Is baptism in it of itself sufficient to remit the sins of a person? This is what Hercules Collins says in the Orthodox Catechism:
Question 75: How does baptism remind you and assure you that Christ's one sacrifice on the cross is for you personally?
Answer: In this way: Christ instituted this outward washing (a) and with it gave the promise that, as surely as water washes away the dirt from the body, so certainly his blood and his Spirit wash away my soul's impurity, in other words, all my sins. (b) (a) Acts 2:38 (b) Matt. 3:11; Rom. 6:3-10; 1 Pet. 3:218
We do not ground the water in it of itself as sufficient for the cleansing of the soul from sin, but that by the Spirit and the blood of Christ, the water and word are used as instruments to deliver actual grace. This is what Andrew Fuller notes,
The immersion of the body in water, which is a purifying element, contains a profession of our faith in Christ, through the shedding of whose blood we are cleansed from all sin. Hence, baptism in the name of Christ is said to be for the remission of sins. Not that there is any such virtue in the element, whatever be the quantity; nor in the ceremony, though of Divine appointment: but it contains a sign of the way in which we must be saved. Sin is washed away in baptism in the same sense as Christ’s flesh is eaten, and his blood drank, in the Lord’s supper: the sign, when rightly used, leads to the thing signified. Remission of sins is ascribed by Peter not properly to baptism, but to the name in which the parties were to be baptized. Thus also Saul was directed to wash away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Nearly akin to this is the idea conveyed to us in the First Epistle of Peter: “The long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. The like figure whereunto baptism doth now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
The salvation of Noah and his family by the ark was a figure of our salvation by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The ark for a time was surrounded, as it were, with waters from above, and from beneath; but it survived its trial, and those who were in it were at length brought safe to land. Christ, also, for a time sustained the deluge of wrath due to our sins; but survived the trial, rising triumphantly from the dead, and thereby saved us from everlasting death. Of this great transaction baptism is a like figure. It is another sign of the same thing. The resemblance of baptism by immersion to the death and resurrection of Christ, and the suitableness of the one to signify our faith in the other, are manifest. It is thus that baptism does now save us; not as putting away the filth of the flesh, (for all the virtue contained in the ordinance itself is “the answer of a good conscience toward God,”) but as affording a sign of our salvation by the victorious resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.9
We would deny therefore the intrinsic act of baptism as sufficient for regeneration, personal and actual faith must be necessary for the reception of the benefits thereof. For a sealing of these gifts and truth there must be the reality of things attained before hand. Henry Lawrence says,
Secondly they [ordinances] are both instruments in the hands of the Holy Spirit for edification and salvation, the word is a dead letter without the Spirit, and so also is Baptism, it speaks no more then it is bid; the blessed Angels that are so farre above sin and corruption, have no quickening virtue in themselves, the flesh of Christ hath no virtue but from his Godhead: Now if there be no virtue in the flesh of Christ, but by the personal union, how shall bodily actions about bodily elements confer grace, but by the mediation of the Spirit.10
4. Dilemma and Resolution
Dilemma: We are forced to subjectively affirm the Baptist understanding of Acts 2:38 and read it into the Creed against what the Nicean fathers themselves believed on Baptismal Regeneration, or deny this part of the Creed as they meant it.
Answer. What is important to note is that although all Christians may claim to these titles of ‘catholic’, their doctrines and teachings must have a basis of representing not just what Christians have maintained in the past but also original intent and teaching of the Scriptures. One may in fact find that the catholic faith may be maintained by a few of those of the world.
We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture. - Basil of Caeserea
If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth - Basil of Caeserea
Thence, the catholic faith and creeds ultimately rests upon the Scriptures.
What does this mean for the dilemma? Should we affirm the creed purely for authorial intent? Or much rather the same reason the authors wrote this work: “The Scriptures teach this.”
This is also an issue from the exclusivists to prove their case that they followed the original intent of the bishops of Nicaea, and not only Nicaea, but also the deposit of faith in which Nicaea stands or falls, the Sacred Scriptures. There is no good in affirming the original authorial intent if there are certain parts needing to be reformed. But if the original intent is taught and bound by the Word of God, we must reconsider.
“Yet we do heartily propose this, that if any of the Servants of our Lord Jesus shall, in the Spirit of meekness, attempt to convince us of any mistake either in judgment or practice, we shall diligently ponder his arguments; and accompt him our chiefest friend that shall be an instrument to convert us from any error that is in our ways, for we cannot wittingly do anything against the truth, but all things for the truth.” Appendix to the 1689 LBCF
My Proposal
That is where I believe the Baptists can still affirm to the creed without having to compromise what we believe the Scripture soundly and explicitly teaches. It is not a-historical position if in fact the Scripture warrants and validates the true meaning of the Baptist position.
https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/study/module/nicea
https://reformedstandards.com/ancient-church/nicene-creed.html
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VFx1qTghx2NlbzayKY9mNMnkTMu1pAtmPkwESgSEgSs/edit?usp=sharing
ibid.
https://www.grace-ebooks.com/library/Benjamin%20Keach/Keach-Trial%20transcript.pdf
ibid.
http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/orthodox-creed.pdf
https://www.thecalvinist.net/etc/1680%20Orthodox%20Catechism%20(Hercules%20Collins).pdf
https://www.davidprince.com/2019/07/18/andrew-fuller-friday-on-understanding-baptism/
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13HzGQbEbFW1xulK9qSeLFckfNhqX8fvUJ-fHEvZmJNE/edit?usp=sharing