Why are Creeds and Confessions Necessary?

"Why are Creeds and Confessions necessary, and how have they been produced?

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament having been given by inspiration of God, are for man in his present state the only and the all-sufficient rule of faith and practice. This divine word, therefore, is the only standard of doctrine which has any intrinsic authority binding the consciences of men. All other standards are of value or authority only as they teach what the Scriptures teach.But it is the inalienable duty and necessity of men to arrive at the meaning of the Scriptures in the use of their natural faculties, and by the ordinary instruments of interpretation. Since all truth is self-consistent in all its parts, and since the human reason always instinctively strives to reduce all the elements of knowledge with which it grapples to logical unity and consistency, it follows that men must more or less formally construct a system of faith out of the materials presented in the Scriptures. Every student of the Bible necessarily does this in the very process of understanding and digesting its teaching, and all such students make it manifest that they have found, in one way or another, a system of faith as complete as for him has been possible, by the very language he uses in prayer, praise, and ordinary religious discourse. If men refuse the assistance afforded by the statements of doctrine slowly elaborated and defined by the church, they must severally make out their own creed by their own unaided wisdom. The real question between the church and the impugners of human creeds, is not, as the latter often pretend, between the word of God and the creed of man, but between the tried and proved faith of the collective body of God's people, and the private judgment and the unassisted wisdom of the individual objector. As it would have been anticipated, it is a matter of fact that the church has advanced very gradually in this work of accurately interpreting Scripture, and defining the great doctrines which compose the system of truths it reveals. The attention of the church has been especially directed to the study of one doctrine in one age, and of another doctrine in a subsequent age. And as she has gradually advanced in the clear discrimination of gospel truth, she has at different periods set down an accurate statement of the results of her new attainments in a creed, or Confession of Faith, for the purpose of preservation and of popular instruction, of discriminating and defending the truth from the perversion of heretics and the attacks of infidels, and of affording a common bond of faith and rule of teaching and discipline."

A.A. Hodge's Outlines of Theology

A Public Apology

It has been brought to my attention that I have hurt a brother in Christ. It was pointed out to me that my exhorting Abraham Juliot publically to "consider his ways and humble himself under the mighty hand of God that He may exalt him in due time" seems to imply that I was rebuking Abe for a sinful prideful heart. This would be wrong to do because I never personally came to him with a concern of his pridefulness. It was never my intention to bring that upon him. For this, I am very sorry.
I use this verse in 1 Pet 5 to constantly exhort myself to keep my own soul humbled under His mighty hand because this is where His gracious blessings reside. This exhortation is a daily one for all Christians. (See context of 1 Pet 5)
I do, however, see that it is very possible to misunderstand what I meant by using that scripture. My lack of clarity is shameful and a brother has been hurt by it.
Even though I am seriously concerned about Abraham's recent doctrinal convictions, I have absolutely no reason to believe that he arrived at them because of pride.
Please accept my apology.

Humbled under His mighty hand,
Joshua

Homosexuality and the Bible by Dr. Robert Gagnon

A few weekends ago I had the privilege of attending a weekend seminar on Homosexuality and the Bible by Dr. Robert Gagnon of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. Dr. Gagnon was called upon to speak on this topic because our state recently had a vote on the marriage referendum.
My pastor, Russell Hamilton, read his book on the subject last year and said it was the best one on the subject he’d found. The lectures were incredibly helpful. He presented the clear Bible teaching that marriage is designed as between one man and one woman and that homosexual behavior is an inordinate affection and is sinful. He dealt with major objections gracefully. The audience was split about 50/50 in regards to support of Gagnon’s presentation. Needless, to say there were some pretty heated objections directed at him. He handled the situation with grace and patience. Gagnon, the second day shared some more pastoral advice. This was no rah-rah fundamentalist party. It was a precise, gracious, and confident exposition of God’s thoughts about homosexuality revealed to us in His Sacred Word. I highly recommend Dr. Gagnon’s teaching on this topic.

The most helpful thing to me was the answer to the objection raised that people have ‘biological causation’ (they are just born with it) so therefore it can’t be condemned as sin. This erroneous idea has given birth to the idea that the right for two people of the same sex to be married is a civil right. They are comparing sexual preference to a person’s race. “They can’t help it.” The answer he gave was extremely helpful. He pointed out that even secular, homosexual supporting scientists have concluded that every behavior is biologically caused and therefore is no determiner of the morality of it. I was born a liar, but that doesn’t make it right. It is indisputable that some people are going to have a greater tendency to have homosexual desires than others. This does not negate the sinfulness of it. Some people have inherited their father’s genetic traits of anger. They still have a responsibility to control their temper.

The other observation was that he was lumping incest, polyamory (multiple partners), and homosexuality in one category. He said, “On what basis can you say that adult, consenting, monogamous homosexual relationship is appropriate but adult consenting monogamous incest or polyamory is to be condemned?” At this point, a man identifying himself as homosexual stood up and expressed his disgust that Dr. Gagnon would compare his sexual behavior to incest or polyamory. He basically walked into a trap. He tried to say those behaviors were bad based upon his personal preference. This is no way to determine truth. If we don’t have the Bible’s definition of marriage, then whatever anyone can conceive of (as long as it is adult, consenting, and monogamous) is okay. The objector had no answer.

I recommend his resources. His website is here.

Follow Up on Abraham Juliot

A previous post of mine concerning Abraham Juliot and Hyper-Calvinism has caused a small stir amongst mutual friends. My intention in the post was not so much to provide a polemic writing but rather to state a disagreement and warning. I felt that something needed to be said as these teachings greatly undermine the Reformed understanding of scripture in which our circle of friends has found a home. The warning was more or less to say, “To all those concerned: Please be aware that the orthodox Reformed faith is in serious opposition to these teachings. Do not be confused about what is being said. The Reformed community as a whole warns about these things as being dangerous.” The public withdrawal of my support of Abraham was necessary.
I have since had conversation with this brother. He feels that the links I provided misrepresent what he personally believes. Surely, this is most unfortunate. I would remind my readers that Abraham’s writings can be found here. (Specifically the post entitled ‘6 Reasons Why I am Not a 5 Point Calvinist’ will show these views.) The links to articles that I gave were only intended as a resource of information explaining the error of those who embrace hyper-calvinistic beliefs and the dangers of holding them. I am in the process of writing a response specifically addressing Abe’s words. In the mean time, I am still concerned with His views of eternal justification, anti-duty faith, denial of what is commonly called ‘the general call’ of the gospel, and what I see as minimizing the responsibility of man.
My previous post stands as stated.

Grace and Peace,
Joshua

M'Cheyne on Open Communion

A Defense of Open Communion by Robert Murray M'Cheyne
...
I believe it to be the mind of Christ, that all who are vitally united to Him, should love one another, exhort one another daily, communicate freely of their substance to one another when poor, pray with and for one another, and sit down together at the Lord’s Table. Each of these positions may be proved by the Word of God. It is quite true that we may be frequently deceived in deciding upon the real godliness of those with whom we are brought into contact. The apostles themselves were deceived, and we must not expect to do the work of the ministry with fewer difficulties than they had to encounter. Still I have no doubt from Scripture that, where we have good reason for regarding a man as a child of God, we are permitted and commanded to treat him as a brother; and, as the most sacred pledge of heavenly friendship, to sit down freely at the table of our common Lord, to eat bread and drink wine together in remembrance of Christ.
The reason of this rule is plain. If we have solid ground to believe that a fellow sinner has been, by the Holy Spirit, grafted into the true vine, then we have ground to believe that we are vitally united to one another for eternity. The same blood has washed us, the same Spirit has quickened us, we lean upon the same pierced breast, we love the same law, we are guided by the same sleepless eye, we are to stand at the right hand of the same throne, we shall blend our voices eternally in singing the same song: “Worthy is the Lamb!” Is it not reasonable, then, that we should own one another on earth as fellow travelers to our Father’s house, and fellow heirs of the incorruptible crown? Upon this I have always acted, both in sitting down at the Lord’s Table and in admitting others to that blessed privilege.
I was once permitted to unite in celebrating the Lord’s Supper in an upper room in Jerusalem. There were fourteen present, the most of whom, I had good reason to believe, knew and loved the Lord Jesus Christ. Several were godly Episcopalians, two were converted Jews, and one a Christian from Nazareth, converted under the American missionaries. The bread and wine were dispensed in the Episcopal manner, and most were kneeling as they received them. Perhaps your correspondents would have shrunk back with horror, and called this the confusion of Babel. We felt it to be sweet fellowship with Christ and with the brethren; and as we left the upper room, and looked out upon the Mount of Olives, we remembered with calm joy the prayer of our Lord that ascended from one of its shady ravines, after the first Lord’s Supper: “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe in me through their word, that they all may be ONE.”
The Table of Christ is a family table spread in this wilderness, and none of the true children should be absent from it, or be separated while sitting at it. We are told of Rowland Hill that, upon one occasion, when he had preached in a chapel where none but baptized adults were admitted to the sacrament, he wished to have communicated with them, but was told respectfully,“ You cannot sit down at our table.” He only calmly replied, “I thought it was the Lord’s Table.”
The early Reformers held the same view. Calvin wrote to Cranmer that he would cross ten seas to bring it about. Baxter, Owen, and Howe, in a later generation, pleaded for it; and the Westminster Divines laid down the same principle in few but solemn words: “Saints, by profession, are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God—which communion, as God offereth opportunity, is to be extended unto all those who in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus.” These words, embodied in our standards, show clearly that the views maintained above are the very principles of the Church of Scotland.

from "Communion with Brethren of Other Denominations" in Bonar, Andrew A., Memoirs of McCheyne, (Escondido, CA: Ephesians Four Group) 1999.

Eden Videos

Russell Hamilton "Who Forgives Sin?"

This is our church.
October 25, 2009 our pastor preached a wonderful sermon on Mk 2:1-12
I considered it a birthday gift.
Russell Hamilton "Who Forgives Sins?"

Milk and Not Meat

"I have fed you with milk and not with meat..."

The same truth in one form is milk, in another form strong meat. “Christ,” says Calvin, “is milk for babes, and strong meat for men.” Every doctrine which can be taught to theologians, is taught to children. We teach a child that God is a Spirit, every where present and knowing all things; and he understands it. We tell him that Christ is God and man in two distinct natures and one person for ever. This to the child is milk, but it contains food for angels. The truth expressed in these propositions may be expanded indefinitely, and furnish nourishment for the highest intellects to eternity. The difference between milk and strong meat, according to this view, is simply the difference between the more or less perfect development of the things taught. This view is confirmed by those passages in which the same distinction is made. Thus in Heb_5:11-14, the apostle speaks of his readers as having need of milk and not of strong meat. The reference is there to the distinction between the simple doctrine of the priesthood of Christ and the full development of that doctrine. The important truth is that there are not two sets of doctrine, a higher and a lower form of faith, one for the learned and the other for the unlearned; there is no part of the gospel which we are authorized to keep back from the people. Every thing which God has revealed is to be taught to every one just so fast and so far as he has the capacity to receive it.

CHARLES HODGE on 1 Cor 3:2

Abraham Juliot... A Retraction of Support

It brings me great sorrow to announce that I can no longer in good conscience support the writings of Abraham Juliot. He has begun propagating teachings that seem, in my judgment, worthy of caution. Many within the orthodox reformed faith warn of these teachings. I share this concern. He has replied here.

Things Worth Fighting For

“Clear cut definition of terms in religious matters, bold facing of the logical implications of religious views, is by many persons regarded as an impious proceeding. May it not discourage contribution to mission boards? May it not hinder the progress of consolidation, and produce a poor showing in columns of Church statistics? But with such persons we cannot possibly bring ourselves to agree. Light may seem at times to be an impertinent intruder, but it is always beneficial in the end. The type of religion which rejoices in the pious sound of traditional phrases, regardless of their meanings, or shrinks from "controversial" matters, will never stand amid the shocks of life. In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight." J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism