In Defense of the Apostles’ Creed (Part 3)

   Of course, we all agree with John that the creeds are not equal to the Bible in authority.  Nevertheless, a bit of honest reflection will bring us to realize that every time we lay down a system of theology, we ourselves are putting forth a creed. The real question, then, is whether one man’s teachings have a right to overthrow the witness of 2,000 years of Christianity.  This is not a matter to be taken lightly.  When John says that Christ returned in A.D. 70, he is only commending his creed.  He is not arguing for the abolition of all creeds.  When John says that death (the last enemy) was destroyed in A.D. 70, while Satan wasn’t destroyed until one thousand years later (!), he is voicing his creed.  When he says that the resurrection is not of our physical bodies, he is promoting his particular creed.  I have explained to John previously, that the pretensions of “Solo Scriptura” are wrong, for the simple reason that the Bible does not speak for itself.  It must be interpreted before it can be understood.  Hence it is not “the Bible alone” that constitutes orthodoxy, but the proper interpretation of the Bible.  This is why creeds are important. 

   Now, if I present to the world some newfangled system of doctrine, I must be prepared to accept the responsibilities that come with it.  I must be ready to take one of the following positions: 1) that I am orthodox, while every one else is a heretic; 2) that I am non-orthodox, but don’t really care; 3) that there is really no such thing as orthodoxy in an absolute sense.  Rather, the term must be looked at in a relative sense.  Please note that this third position is the one which Hyper-Preterists most commonly take.  Instead of branding the historic church as heretical, the middle position is accepted.  This position, however, blurs the distinctions between truth and falsehood– a practice which must be condemned.  Due to the constant jostling of various systems of belief, man has a tendency sometimes to adopt a conciliatory attitude which essentially results in laxity of dogma and “toleration” toward views which the Bible marks as unacceptable, and even heretical. 

   The children of God, however, must always seek to make clearer the distinctions between good and evil, truth and error, light and darkness.  The allegorists must concur with me when I point out that the true function of “the heavens” is to give light to all the earth.  The moon (church) always shines brightest when she stands before her Lord, the Sun of Righteousness.  Then the heavens truly illuminate those dwelling in darkness.  When she moves away from her Lord, however, her testimony is gradually diminished, until darkness envelops the world once more.  We must in all events seek to maintain our proper position before the Lord.  If darkness ensues we must pray for a spiritual revival, which shall restore our position in the heavens, that the whole world may be illumined by the refulgence of Christ.  In all events we must strive to make the truth shine clearer and more distinctly before all.  Let us beware of compromising, lest we be found promoting the kingdom of darkness. 

   There is another reason why the “Solo Scriptura” argument breaks down under a closer investigation.  For the New Testament did not manufacture itself.  The formation of the canon was a slow and gradual process.  It is clear that some well-defined standard of orthodoxy existed from the very beginning.  Else, how were the fathers led to reject certain works as spurious, while others they accepted as canonical?  Of course they were guided by the divine influence of the Holy Spirit, but they must also have had some kind of external standard.  And when we look to church history we find out exactly what this standard was– the traditions passed down to them from the Apostolic Churches! Eusebius tells us that in his time (A.D. 324) epistles such as 2 Peter, James, Jude, and even 2 & 3 John, while recognized by many, were not universally accepted (Ecc. Hist. III. xxv).  On the other hand, certain heretical books such as the Acts of Paul, Gospel of Thomas, and Apocalypse of Peter, were almost universally rejected. 

   Were the fathers wrong in rejecting the so-called “Gospel of Thomas” from the canon of authentic Scriptures?  If you take Riffe’s approach, you are free to accept or reject any writing as you please.  For he has already denied the orthodoxy of the Fathers.  Thus, he cannot credibly stand with them on the issue of canonicity, for their verdict was based on their notions of orthodoxy!  The Gospel of Thomas is a work of Gnostic origin, and was widely used among the Docetae; but it contains nothing obnoxious to one who holds that orthodoxy consists only of “honest seeking.”  Why reject any of the Apocryphal Gospels?  If a man has a right to formulate his own doctrine on his own definitions of orthodoxy, what prevents him from forming his own canon of Scripture?  Obviously he can do this as well.  But John, in accepting the New Testament canon as it stands, tacitly accepts Nicene standards of orthodoxy.  Thus he contradicts himself in saying that we mustn’t accept the Apostles’ Creed as authoritative.  Very well.  In that case, neither need we accept the New Testament canon as authoritative!

   You see what kind of errors one gets into when he takes this position.  As I’ve said many times, and will continue to say in the face of all opposition, there is only one body and one faith.  There cannot be one body and many faiths.  If you do not accept the one faith, you do not belong to the one body.  In departing from the one faith you create a new body of your own.  Hence the rise of denominationalism.  John has chosen certain heretical views, and in so doing, has ostracized himself from the true church.  As long as he continues to combat sound orthodoxy, he must be steadfastly withstood.  In all this, however, I realize that the Holy Spirit alone can convict him of error.  For what man has power to overcome another man’s will?  Know that all heresy essentially springs from self-will; as writes Tertullian in his excellent treatise A Prescription Against Heretics.  The seat of all heresy lies in the will of the heretic.  He will not submit himself to any authority outside of himself.  And for this reason Paul ranks heresies among “the works of the flesh” (Gal. 5: 20); maintaining that “they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5: 21). If John does not believe me, I hope he’ll at least accept these sacred proofs from the Word of God.

   But since he has brought this issue forward, we must continue to show that his position is false.  And indeed there are many flaws.  His “Solo Scriptura” argument breaks down on a third point as well.  For there are hardly any Christians who don’t use some extra-Biblical materials to support their theology.  The historicists, for example, in making their appeal draw largely from human history.  Preterists draw from un-inspired writers such as Josephus, and from the historical events of A.D. 66-70.  If we should insist on sticking to the Bible alone, most of these systems will become entirely unverifiable.  Unless we ourselves adhere to the practice of using the Bible alone, without any extra-Scriptural reference, we cannot reasonably bar the use of the creeds, which represent the great cloud of witnesses within Christ’s body.  It is amusing to note that John, who is so dead-set against creeds and confessions, and persistently asserts that the “Bible alone” is sufficient, himself makes constant use of human writings to back up his Millennial views.  Just look at his website (http://prophecyandhistory.com/), and you’ll wonder how he can seriously maintain his position of “Solo Scriptura,” when he draws more from extra-Biblical sources than any of us!

   I would like to know how John can use the “Bible alone” to back up any of his Preterist views.  For there is not a single passage in Scripture that states that Christ ever returned.  Christ Himself says, “Behold, I come quickly” (Rev. 22: 12).  Of course, John’s response would be that the message was addressed to a select group of people 2,000 years ago; and that the coming was fulfilled in A.D. 70.  But this view, which I don’t accept at all, relies entirely on the use of extra-Biblical reference.  Without knowledge of the events of the Jewish war, the whole structure of Preterism would be brought to nothing.  So, how can John prove the Millennium began in A.D. 70?  Really, if we were to honor those who make use of the Bible alone, without any extra-Biblical material at all, we’d have to give the top prize to the futurist fundamentalists.  This is incredible!  I really don’t know how John, with a straight face, can aver that creeds mustn’t be used on “Solo Scriptura” grounds.  Let John first practice his own theory, and then we’ll listen to him.  Until then, we will continue to hold to the historicity of the one faith, on the same basis that he makes use of history books to back up his eschatological views.  

   But considered on a “Solo Scriptura” level, I should say that the Apostles’ Creed represents the exact teachings of Scripture– plus nothing, minus nothing.  It contains no provision that “Christ already returned,” for that is clearly not a teaching contained in the Bible itself.  It must be derived from human writings, and a strangely abortive kind of logic which is totally unfitted for the investigation of the truth.  Thus, the Creed, which has a real historical continuity throughout all ages of the church’s history, far from purporting to supplement the Bible, actually supports the “Solo Scriptura” view more than anything else.  It is an ally of the very principle which John claims to defend.  And so it is no wonder why so many Christians have found it acceptable.  For there is nothing in the Bible alone that contradicts it!  Is not this amazing? Behold how scorners are brought to nothing by their very own weapons. Lest John be further confounded in this matter, I call to him to “wake up!”  We need not be enemies, but we do need to follow the pure Evangelical faith– the same faith delivered to the saints, and passed down through the ages.  I am persuaded that this same faith has power to change hearts and lives. Let us only wield the sword of the Spirit, and we shall see its effects.

   But we must move onward to discuss another reason why creeds are important.  Everyone knows that creeds promote Christian unity.  And in no case has this been better exemplified than by the Apostles’ Creed.  When Charles Martel withstood the Moors in 732 A.D., what church was he representing?  Was it a church with many different faiths?– or was it a church with one faith?  When Peter the Hermit preached the First Crusade, to whom did he make his appeal?  Was it to many different bodies, or only one body?  When the Christian forces wrested Jerusalem from the clutches of the Moor, were they not unified by one faith?  If they had been broken into several different sects, the Crusades would never have become a reality.  Every time Christianity has done great things in the world, its power has been achieved through unity, not diversity.  I could go on to give numerous examples from history, which show that Christian unity alone has power.  I think the reason why Christianity lacks force today is because of “many different creeds” battling for supremacy.  The man on the street doesn’t know what to think any more.  And so, whenever he sets sail, he must needs be tossed upon the seas of controversy.  When will the tempest cease?

   It will cease only when we call upon Christ to calm the winds of diversity, and return to the One True Faith.  When the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles at the day of Pentecost, unity prevailed among them.  Thus we learn that the Holy Spirit promotes unity.  Whenever we seek to impose strange and divers doctrines upon others, we show the lack of spiritual influence in our hearts.  The prophet Isaiah gives us a standing testimony of what occurs when we rebuke sound wisdom and run after our own dreams and delusions: “Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a work among this people, even a marvelous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid” (Isaiah 29: 14).  Likewise, Paul writes: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine: but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Tim. 4: 3-4). 

   It is essential, therefore, to have some sure standard whereby we may test any new doctrines that come along.  And even Paul intimated this when he said, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2: 15); indicating to us that not all New Testament teachings were committed to writing.  A large part may in fact have been delivered by word only.  And this would certainly verify the statements of Rufinus; namely, that the Creed was delivered by the apostles as a measure of protection against false teachers.  When one seriously considers the matter, he must agree that there had to be some easy way by which Christian disciples could test the validity of doctrinal teaching.  For if there were no such standard, it would hardly have been possible for novices to identify false teachers; especially considering that these teachers used specious arguments to lure others away from the truth.  So, wasn’t there some sure compass by which early Christians could stay clear of the reefs and shoals of heresy?  There must have been.  And this compass was the Apostles’ Creed!

   But let us think.  There is yet another aspect by which we may view the validity of the Creed– namely, that the Creed itself is an external expression of the internal work of the Spirit.  For Paul writes, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.  For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Romans 10: 9-10).  Thus we see that inward belief and outward confession go hand in hand.  And these make sure our salvation.  But is it possible for the confession to contradict our inward conviction of the truths of faith?  Impossible!  For if the tree of faith hath been planted, it must bear its own fruit.  And if the same faith prevails among all of God’s children, then the same fruit must also prevail.  Hence there is uniformity in both the tree and the fruit.  If a man offers us strange fruit, shall we assume that it came from Christ’s tree?– or should we, seeking guidance, call to mind the rule of faith?  I leave the reader to decide.  If the rule of faith convicts a man’s teachings as false, then we must identify them as heretical.

   The Creed, then, may be viewed as the external or outward expression of the inward working of Christian faith.  Where many divers creeds exist, error must prevail.  We should ask ourselves, in all honesty, whether the one faith may ever be questioned.  For as stated above, true faith will always produce uniformity of belief.  And the Apostles’ Creed has a historical continuity that cannot be denied.  I should think that the only system with any possibility of being the truth is the one that shows consistency throughout all ages. As Tertullian writes: “Is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith?  No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result.  Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues.  When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition.  Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say they were in error who handed on the tradition?” (De Praesc. Haereticorum, xxviii).  Now we have proven, in previous articles, that the Apostles’ Creed has real historical continuity.  Therefore, it has the least likelihood being false; whereas a system that arose only yesterday has the highest probability of being erroneous.

   Therefore, let us leave behind all delusions and return to the old paths.  For these are the sure ways, which have been truly tested by many generations of pious men.  Those who seek after novelty will always go astray, whether they claim the truth or not.  And I think that at this time the Hyper-Preterists have abundantly shown that their system has no possibility of ever yielding the fruits of the Spirit.  Instead of walking in our wisdom and folly, why not submit ourselves to the saints of old?  Let us sit at the feet of the Fathers, and drink in their wisdom; for they were far more advanced than ourselves.  Let us return to the true church, and submit ourselves to the New Jerusalem!  Regardless of what other men claim, it empowers me to know that I belong to same church as Ignatius and Irenaeus, Tertullian and Lactantius, Eusebius and Justin Martyr.  What a great honor it is to fellowship with these saints and martyrs of old!  And I pray, dear friend, that you join me in worshiping our Lord and Savior in Spirit and in truth, and laboring to uphold and maintain the One True Faith.  Now, what is this faith?  Repeat after me:

   “I believe in God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth.  And in Jesus Christ His only-begotten Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell; the third day He rose from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father Almighty.  From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.  I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the flesh; and the life everlasting.  Amen.”

In Defense of the Apostles’ Creed (Part 2)

   In the present article, I’d like to continue clearing up some of the statements that John Riffe has made concerning the Apostles’ Creed.  It seems to be his intention to cast doubt on the creed in a number of ways: firstly, by placing in question its authorship; secondly, by noting a lack of urgency in the Parousia expectation; thirdly, by claiming that it was amended and embellished at divers periods of the church’s history; and fourthly, by pointing out the fact that it was never equated with the word of God.  Although John has written some great material in the past, and while I appreciate his concerns, I do not subscribe to any method of argument which depends on the instillation of doubt in the minds of readers.  In every event we must be watchful and diligent in our maintenance of evangelical standards.  Let us beware of casting shadows.  The children of God have not to do with darkness, but with light. 

   Satan used doubt-instilling methods when he enticed Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit.  Tempting her to question the veracity of God’s word, he pointed out the desirability of the fruit itself– not telling her, however, that the good and evil were deceptively intermixed.  The same spirit, and even the same modus operandi, underlies Hyper Preterism.  In order for Hyper-Preterists to get others to eat from their tree, they rely on a number of devilish tactics.  One of these involves planting doubt in the minds of God’s people as to the true meaning of the text.  “Does the word of God really say that?”

   They tell us that the Bible must be understood in a mystical and allegorical sense– notwithstanding that all the prophecies concerning our Savior’s first advent and Passion are clear and unambiguous.  And yet the H.P.’s would like us to believe that all statements concerning the second coming are unclear and elusive!  That is just one method they use.  Another is to make themselves appear progressive, as it were, and on the “cutting edge” of theology. They pride themselves on their supposed ability to correctly read the texts.  And yet their views cannot be found anywhere in the history of the church!  Obviously, all such methods derive force from an evolutionary theory of doctrinal development.  But the Holy Spirit does not work according to man’s theory of evolution.  Let us pause and remember where evolution all started– at the Tower of Babel.  It is essentially a product of the devil.

   But Preterism and other heretical systems rely upon it.  For they have no historicity to back up their claims.  Their teachers plead for a “solo Scriptura” understanding.  But the Scriptures do not speak for themselves.  They must be interpreted.  The evolutionists are not really saying that the Scriptures must be preferred, but that their interpretations must be preferred.  That erroneous concept, however, has caused many to err from the truth.  And I’m afraid that John has fallen into the snare.  For a brief period I myself held a similar view.  But I soon realized the flawed foundation on which it rests.  For having been led by the Spirit to know that God’s purposes never fail, I soon discerned that the doctrines of theological evolution and isolated understanding are absolutely impossible.  Let me use language that most “Reformed” Preterists will understand.  If Hyper-Preterism is the truth, then God is not truly sovereign.  If it took Christians 2,000 years to arrive at a correct system of doctrine, then the church can never really have been “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3: 15).  This would also imply that orthodoxy was preceded by 1,900 years of heresy!  Are one man’s teachings really enough to topple down centuries of church tradition?  Think again.  Such views are blasphemous and heretical, and must be rejected by every true child of God. 

   Besides, they are bogus and irrational.  And those who cling to them are equally irrational.  They are not to be listened to, but patiently withstood.  While I am entirely against the heresy of Hyper-Preterism, I think that theological evolution and headstrong pride are the real enemies.   And their popular reception would certainly account for the wholesale rejection of creeds and confessions.  One who thinks he has ‘advanced’ above all others will disdain to follow the tried and tested paths, and hew out his own deceptive trails. But if a Christian separates himself from the great cloud of witnesses in the church, what is his true status in the body?  This question will be a challenge to many.  For it is clear to me that one who contemns Christ’s body has ostracized himself therefrom.  He or she has fallen way from the true vine, and must be grafted back in again.  Only faith will enable us to stand in Christ.  But if we have not faith, we cannot be saved.  For it is by faith alone that we have access to the grace wherein we stand (Romans 5: 2). 

   That others may not succumb to the deadly fate of apostasy, I have thought it expedient to counteract, as best I can, their insidious poison with the antidote of truth.  Let us hope the medicine proves effective.  Of course, the lack of spiritual power evinced by Preterism should tell us that it is not the authorized Gospel.  And really, on a whole Preterism has had a poor history.  It is interesting to note that, in spite of the  push of academia during the 19th century to promote the doctrines of Preterism, the movement was completely wiped out within a short number of years.  Every time Preterism has made an advance, Futurism has driven it back into the darkness where it belongs.  I believe that Preterism, in its protean manifestations, will always fall under pure evangelical Christianity. 

   But let us get back to John’s contention that the creed was embellished many times throughout the years.  It is true that the creed has come down to us in a number of forms.  Yet none of these forms are contradictory.  Rufinus, writing in 390 A.D., speaks of slight additions made to the creed by different churches.  Nevertheless, all of the versions of the creed have come down to us agreeing in statement in structure.  All affirm the session of the Son of God at the right hand of the Father.  All affirm His coming thence to judge the living and the dead.  All affirm a future resurrection of the flesh.  These seem to be the articles with which John has the biggest problem.  Because he has accepted the indefensible notion that Christ returned in A.D. 70, he has cast away the creed as erroneous.  I, on the other hand, affirm the authority of the creed. Never has it been more needful for the children of God to cleave to the one true faith.

   John is correct that the Nicene Creed differs somewhat from the Apostles’ Creed.  Why?  Because the former represents the Eastern church, which was at the time of its ratification (325 A.D.) being overrun by the heresy of Arianism.  This creed contains clear statements regarding the homoousion, or co-essence of the Father and Son, which the Arian teachings denied.  Thus, the creed was only enlarged as a measure to defend against heresy.  The issue of embellishment does not prove that the creeds are unreliable.  It only shows that creeds have, in all ages of church history, been necessary in combating different forms of false doctrine.  Heresies have always existed in the church.  It is important to have some external standard whereby we may test whether a man’s doctrines be true or false.  If there is no other standard but the Bible alone, then all the heretics that ever vexed the church must stand on equal ground with those who maintained the true faith.  This is what I mean when I accuse Hyper-Preterists of dragging the truth down to lowest possible standards.  Let no man blur the distinctions between good and evil.  The truth must always be exalted.  And it will be!

   One of the important amendments made to the Apostles’ Creed is the clause adopted by the Church of Aquileia, “Hujus carnis resurrectionem“– “the resurrection of this flesh.”  Rufinus, the creed’s earliest expositor, explains this to us: “Our church, in teaching the faith, instead of “the Resurrection of the flesh,” as the creed is delivered in other churches, guardedly adds the pronoun ‘this’– ‘the resurrection of this flesh.’  ‘Of this,’ that is, no doubt, of the person who rehearses the creed, making the sign of the cross upon his forehead, while he says the word, that each believer may know that his flesh, if he have kept it clean from sin, will be a vessel of honor, useful to the Lord, prepared for every good work; but if defiled by sins, that it will be a vessel of wrath destined to destruction.” (Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, xliii).

   That is a case where embellishment became necessary to more clearly define the faith.  Note that the heresy denying the resurrection of the flesh arose at an early epoch of the church’s history.  The early church fathers are in general agreement that Simon Magus (Acts 8: 9 ff.) and his disciple Menander were the authors of the Gnostic heresy which denied the resurrection.  So it is no wonder to find, at a very early date, true teachers doing all they could to combat this error.  The creed came in very a propos to their efforts, for it provided a sure standard whereby a man’s teachings could be tested by laymen and ministers alike.

   It would appear that John Riffe denies the resurrection of the flesh.  Wherefore it is only natural that he should deny the creed.  For if he accepted the creed, his system of theology would be destroyed.  Thus, I cannot take seriously his implication that the Creed must be rejected because it was embellished at divers times.  These are mere excuses made to break the authority of creeds, and yet the arguments John is using are so frail that they crumble at the slightest touch.  To be fair, however, I will ask John if he can show me one instance in which any of the fundamental articles were changed.  If he can, then I may well agree with him.  But let’s be honest with ourselves.  The Apostles’ Creed has always been the Apostles’ Creed, and always will be, to the world’s end!

   John’s fourth remark was that the Creed was never equated with the word of God.  This is correct.  But neither should we expect it to be.  And when we think it over, we must concede that it was an act of wisdom not to include it in Scripture.  For if it were part of Scripture, it would now be subject to false interpretation by heretics!  Frankly, I accept the traditional view that the Creed is a direct product of the blessed Apostles.  And only those of the Higher Critical (that is, evolutionary) persuasion will seriously doubt its Apostolic authorship.  Rufinus, in recording its history, informs us why the Creed was never committed to writing:

   “It is called ‘Indicium’ or ‘Signum,’ a sign or token, because, at that time, as the Apostle Paul says, and as is revealed in the Acts of the Apostles, many of the vagabond Jews, pretending to be Apostles of Christ, went about preaching for gain’s sake or their belly’s sake, naming the name of Christ indeed, but not delivering their message according to the exact traditional lines.  The Apostles therefore prescribed this formulary as a sign or token by which he who preached Christ truly, according to the Apostolic rule, might be recognized.  Finally, they say that in civil wars, since the armor of both sides is alike, and the language the same, and the custom and mode of warfare the same, each general, to guard against treachery, is wont to deliver to his soldiers a distinct symbol or watchword– in Latin ’signum’ or ‘indicium’–so that if one is met with, of whom it is doubtful to which side he belongs, being asked the symbol (watchword), he discloses whether he is friend or foe.  And for this reason, the tradition continues, the Creed is not written on paper or parchment, but is retained in the hearts of the faithful, that it may be certain that no one has learnt it by reading, as is sometimes the case with unbelievers, but by tradition from the Apostles.” (Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, ii).

   So, according to the statements of Rufinus, the creed is a necessary aid in combating false teachers.  It was not included in Scripture, because it was not to be read, but to be memorized.  We must remember also, that the Creed was for centuries used as a baptismal formula, and in catechetical exercises.  I remember years ago, when a child, having to recite the Creed during catechism.  This ancient tradition goes back all the way to the days of the early church.  And no one ever supposed that its absence from the Divine canon places its authority in question.  Quite the contrary.  The Reformers, far from denying the authority of the Creed, considered it a necessary part of Christian instruction.  For instance, Section II of Luther’s Small Catechism (A.D. 1529) states that the creed “should be clearly and simply explained to every household by the head of the family.”  The Heidelberg Catechism (A.D. 1563), asks (Question 22): “What is necessary for a Christian to believe?” The answer is: “All that is promised us in the Gospel, which the articles of our catholic, undoubted Christian faith teach us in sum.”  Question twenty-three reads: “What are these articles?”  In answer, the respondent recites the Apostles’ Creed.

   The French Confession of faith (A.D. 1559) likewise considers the creeds to be authoritative.  Also, in the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (1563), the authority of creeds is expressed as follows: “The three creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.”  Creedal authority is also enforced in the Anglican Catechism of 1549, as well as the Westminster Shorter Catechism of 1647.  It is a base misconception that the Reformers, in working to cleanse the true faith from the accretions and corruptions of Romanism, ever intended to do away with the Creeds and Confessions.  This notion, which is entirely false, has been repeatedly exposed by Roderick Edwards.  Only in recent years have Evangelical Christians sought to cast away the creeds.  And this practice has become popular, not among traditional mainline Protestant groups, but among cults such as the “Churches of Christ,” whose ministers claim to hold the pure faith, but end up impeaching all men (and each other) as liars.

To be continued…

In Defense of the Apostles’ Creed (Part 1)

   This article is written in response to a recent conversation with John Riffe.  In discussing the issues of historicity, I told him that as it was impossible for two opposing parties to be right, I would have to agree with the party that has historical continuity of the faith, as it is not possible that the Holy Spirit could have failed to guide Christians into the truth for 2,000 years.  Such a theory is not only ridiculous, but is frankly heretical.  The opposition between our views, while never vehement, nevertheless became so sharp, that, like Barnabas and Paul, we were forced to part ways.  Since that time, John has written attacks against the Apostles’ creed.  And he has also refused to publish any more of my comments.  Since this conduct does not agree with the principles of fair play, I wrote him telling him that I would issue a formal response to his article at http://prophecyandhistory.com/?q=node/323.  

   Let me start by giving my own opinion concerning the Apostles’ Creed.  I do not believe that anyone can be saved unless he or she believes in the one faith delivered to the saints.  I believe that this faith is contained in the Apostles’ Creed.  Those who do not accept the creed I cannot accept as Christian brethren, and the church fathers would have supported me in this. How is one a Christian if he does not even believe in the tenets of Christianity? If there be many bodies with many different faiths, then I find no trace of them in Scripture.  At any rate, the doctrine of “many bodies” does not concern me.  My duty is to cleave to and defend the “One body” (Eph. 4: 4) that has the Apostolic power, gifts, and graces.

   Preterism, as we all know, has had a history of dragging the truth down to the lowest possible standards.  Preterists insist that they are Christians, but I think few of them really take their professions seriously.  Even the Scribes and Pharisees maintained an outward form of religion; but Preterists cannot even do that.  Most of them are of low moral character, not sticking to lie, cheat, or do anything they can to promote their views and overthrow the true faith.  For all that, they are afraid to label their own beliefs orthodox or even stand behind one another.  They will not even dare call themselves a church.  Rather, they insist on being known as a “community.” Very well.  Let the community either come to Christ to be cleansed, or remain without the assembly.

   When we deal with Preterists, we must remember that they are people who have voluntarily separated from all of forms of orthodox religion.  They have consistently declared, either by their speech or their actions, that they are enemies of any kind of orthodox futurism.  Rebuke them, and, like Simon Magus, they shall only redouble their efforts against us.  But their weapons are not sound.  There are many holes and inconsistencies in their system to which their headstrong arrogance blinds them.  Point these inconsistencies out, and watch them war against reason.  Warring against the Bible is bad enough.  But to insist on being irrational is to drag oneself down to the level of the brute beasts.  Be men and at least agree to reason with us. But no.  The groveling methods they use prevent them from lifting their eyes to the sun.

   After a brief run-in with Hyper Preterism, it came as no surprise to me to learn that these men are implacable enemies of creeds and confessions.  Their promiscuous standards of truth do not permit them to even frame any kind of formal creed for themselves, for they are constitutionally unable to believe in anything they assert.  When one destroys the meaning of language, one must deal with the consequences.  In pulling down the temple, one risks killing himself; and so, as a natural consequence of his actions, he only destroys his own faith.  I believe this is the case with many Preterists.  They cannot take seriously even their own beliefs anymore. 

   It’s nice to see that John Riffe, a former full preterist, made some effort to conform the Apostles’ Creed to his own Millennial system.  But it would be more praiseworthy, I think, if he sought to conform his system to the creed.  For rejection of the creed places him outside the ranks of orthodox Christianity.  As I have told him many a time, there is only one faith and one body.  The one body has always maintained and held the one faith as contained in the creed.  If there is one body but many faiths, let us just throw away our Bibles and embrace Islam, Buddhism, or some other religion that knows what it is about. 

   In his recent article, I’ve noticed that John has cast doubt on the Apostolic authorship of the creed. That is fine.  Let me say that the authorship of the creed is, in my mind, a red-herring.  For anyone reading the creed can clearly see that the doctrines proclaimed therein are those taught by Scripture.  What is important to me is not proving the authorship of the creed, but proving historical continuity of its teachings from the Apostolic period onwards.  Surprisingly, this is very easy to do.  Unless one chooses to completely set aside the testimony of the early church, one must concede that there isn’t a trace of evidence for the assertion that Christ returned in A.D. 70.  This being the case, it is only natural that the earliest church documents agree with belief in a future second coming of Christ.

   That some kind of formal creed was used by the early church may be inferred from 1 Cor. 15: 3; Heb. 6: 1-2; 2 Tim. 1: 13-14; 2 John 10; Jude 3, and similar passages.  This is no new idea of my own, but has already been pronounced feasible by scholars such as Philip Schaff, S. Baring-Gould, and others.  True, the apostles never enclosed such a formal creed in any of their own writings.  The probable reason is that it wasn’t necessary.  For the apostles handed the truth down to the their disciples, who handed it down to their disciples, and so on. The Ante-Nicene fathers are very clear in their statements concerning Episcopal succession.  There is far more evidence in that matter than, perhaps, John Riffe supposes.

  Although John has been unable to trace the creed prior to Tertullian, I have to say that he is mistaken.  The earliest traces of a formula similar to that of the Apostles’ Creed may be found in Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of John the Evangelist.  In A.D. 107 he wrote: “Stop your ears, therefore, when anyone speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and did eat and drink.  He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified and [truly died], in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth.  He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from Whom we do not possess the true life.” (Epistle to the Trallians, ix).

   Since Ignatius was a disciple of John, it is impossible that would have have derived his beliefs from a source other than the blessed Evangelist.  That he is speaking of a resurrection of the flesh is evident when we consider that at that time, he was combating the errors of the Docetae, who held that Christ had an ethereal, non-human body.  Thus, Ignatius confirms to his hearers that Christ was truly raised in his own flesh, and that we will be raised “after the same manner.”  Polycarp, his brother in Christ (another disciple of John), also speaks of a future judgment and resurrection. (Epistle to the Philippians, ii, v, vi, xi).

   Now Ireneaus was a disciple of Polycarp.  And Ireneaus makes implicit statements regarding historic succession of the Apostolic churches.  In Book III of his work Against Heresies (A.D. 180), he gives a detailed account of the early succession of churches (cap. 2, 3, 4, 5), and goes on to affirm that nowhere else outside of the One Church is the truth to be found.  What is this truth?  He tells us clearly in the following words: “Believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus the Son of God; Who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendor, shall come in glory, the Savior of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth and despise His Father and His advent” (cap. 4).

   I don’t think the words can be any clearer than that.  If my friend John needs more proof of the historical continuity of the creed, I am not sure where to get it for him, as it is impossible to go back in time and ask the Apostles themselves.  As in all cases of this nature, we must either believe or disbelieve the testimony that lies before us.  I, for one, am a believer.  For I have found it a principle of well-being not to go through life doubting everything that purports to be what it is.  Doubt is opposed to faith and drags downward.  But faith inspires upward.  So, while we may not have all the answers now, it will be much safer for our souls if we simply accept and believe the testimony of men who spilt their own blood for the faith.  I hope that John will agree with me on this.

   He (Riffe) goes on to say that all Scripture was written from the pre-A.D. 70 time frame.  I trust he knows, however, that this view does not represent the consensus of Bible scholars.  The book of Revelation, for instance, cannot be traced prior to the end of Domitian’s reign.  I admit, of course, the slim possibility of it being composed prior to A.D. 70.  But let us look at it this way.  If it first appeared around 97 A.D., then we may rest assured that it was not sitting in a corner for thirty years, but that it was being handed downward from disciple to disciple.  If this view is feasible, then we have a right to expect some notification of its fulfillment, if such were the case.  In other words, if the churches knew this book had already been fulfilled, then I’m sure they would have passed that knowledge along with the book.  At least we should think so!  But, no.  Ireneaus, a grand-disciple of John the Evangelist, was a pre-Millennialist!  And this only helps to confirm the view that the book was written during Domitian’s persecution.

   Even though Preterists continue to argue over the supposed “internal evidence” of Revelation– as, for example, the Jewish temple being represented as still standing– this evidence is not at all conclusive, as the book is written largely in symbolic language.  At any rate, what I am saying is this: that there is no evidence, here or elsewhere, that Christ ever returned in A.D. 70.  Neither the early churches held this view, nor can any support be garnered from the New Testament writings themselves.  Shocking as this may sound to Hyper-Preterists, nevertheless it is true.  For there is no way the logical threads, faithfully followed out, ever lead to the conclusion that Christ returned in A.D. 70.  Full Preterism comes about through an insufficient gathering of facts, followed by vigorous a priori kickback.  I’ve already explained in previous articles why such a method is not acceptable.  Let us drop this method, for it will never lead us anywhere except into deeper confusion.

   Since the view that Christ returned in A.D. 70 is obviously what is preventing John from accepting the orthodox creeds, I urge him to re-examine his own conclusions.  He seems to see in the creed some vague and elusive cessation of the parousia anticipation.  However, I frankly do not see this at all.  For if Christ is still sitting at the right hand of the Father, and the general judgment and resurrection are represented as still future, then the very opposite must be conceded.  Rather, the creed itself states that the Second Coming is a future event.  Please wake up, John.  I am not at all your enemy.  I am trying to lead you back to a common sense view of the Parousia.  And in the weeks and moths to come I hope that others will see that what I am saying is correct.

   As for the Patristic writers, I shall quote them freely.  Far from being insufficient, the church Fathers constitute my largest source of ammunition against Preterism.  As long as Christians are willing to look at the issues of historicity, I have no fear that pure Christianity will ever be pulled down.  Of course we must remember that Satan is on the loose.  An apostasy is raging, and many men have crept in unawares.  But Paul tells us the reason why heresies are permitted to exist. “That they which are approved may be made manifest among you” (1 Cor. 11: 19).  Heresies exist to refine and purify the righteous. Those deceivers and stewards of Satan have already proven by their fruits that they are bastard vines who have no part in Christ. So, “let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind.  And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (Matt. 15: 14).

To Be Continued…