One of the most common questions that Presbyterians get is, why do you have a confession? Why not just stick with the Bible?
Of course, this is not a Presbyterian issue. It is a Christian issue. Confessions or statements of faith are nearly universal in denominations and independent churches. Whether we are talking about Methodists, Episcopalians, Baptists, or the so-called non-denominational church down the street, they all have their statements of faith.
Why? Because Christians know that they are called to teach the truth. God wants us to explain, summarize, and defend the truth—not merely repeat the words of the Bible. That’s why Christians everywhere do this.
When they confess, there is a remarkable degree of unity in our statements of faith. The Presbyterian theologian Thomas Peck, reviewing Philip Schaff’s The Creeds of Christendom, said that this collection “must impress us also with the real consensus of the Evangelical Churches upon [many matters], and the most important” (“The Creeds of Christendom,” Southern Presbyterian Review 29, no. 2 [April 1878]:218). This is still true. See examples of this in my collection of statements here.
Why Not One Statement for Everybody?
We said there are many. Why can’t we have a single statement of faith that all Christians agree on? It’s rather simple: because all Christians do not agree on all things—even important things.
At the same time, we must admit that there is a good impulse behind this desire. We want greater unity in the church. And we recognize that people can become Christians without agreeing on every point of doctrine. What we must believe to be saved is less than what the Bible teaches about how salvation came about and how the church is to be organized. These foundational beliefs unite us as Christians.
To become a Christian, all that is necessary is a simple profession of faith in Jesus Christ and a commitment to live as His follower (i.e., faith and repentance). But this is not all that the church is required to say about God. The church—particularly through its ministerial or pastoral office—is called to more. As Presbyterian theologian R.L. Dabney put it:
The minister of Christ is “a steward of the mysteries of God. Moreover, it is required in stewards that a man be found faithful.” (1 Cor. 4:1–2.) The heterodox teacher “who consents not to wholesome words, the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, is proud, knowing nothing, but doting,” etc. (1 Tim. 6:3–4.) The minister must be “a workman approved unto God, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Tim. 2:15.) Timothy must “continue in the things which he had learned and been assured of, knowing of whom he learned them.” (2 Tim. 3:14.) Titus must “show in doctrine uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, sound speech that cannot be condemned.” (Titus 2:7–8) (“Broad Churchism,” in Discussions: Evangelical, vol. 2, ed. C. R. Vaughan [Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1890], 450).
These passages require much more than a simple profession of faith. They require teaching the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). That’s why we need fuller confessions or statements of faith.
Dealing with Our Differences
So, what should Christians do when they disagree on what the Scriptures teach, as they often do? The church’s mission requires clear teaching, and clear teaching requires clarity about secondary doctrines as well as primary ones. When sincere believers cannot teach the same things with integrity, the result has historically been the formation of different denominations. This is not because unity is unimportant but because teaching according to conscience is important.
Take, for example, congregationalists and episcopalians. One is convinced that each congregation is self-governing; the other believes Scripture requires bishops overseeing churches. How can they operate within the same structure? They cannot. But they can build separate structures and still embrace one another as brothers in Christ.
Someone may ask, “Why don’t they just ignore those differences and come together?” But that is simply asking one side to ignore what they believe Scripture teaches and to adopt your view instead. In other words: unity would be easy if everyone would just agree with me. But none of us are God’s final arbiter, and we should not expect Christians to violate their conscience for the sake of an artificial uniformity.
Because Christians will not agree on all things—and because Scripture calls us both to teach with conviction and to maintain charity—the best arrangement is for believers to gather in churches where they can teach freely, while still showing Christian tolerance and affection toward those who differ (see Phil. 3:15–16 and Thomas Smyth, “The Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity: The True and Only Required Basis of Charity and United Christian Effort,” address delivered at Philadelphia, on the twenty-second anniversary of the American Sunday-School Union, May 17, 1846 (Philadelphia: American Sunday-School Union, 1846]). They may disagree on secondary doctrines, but they embrace one another as persons.
Of course, some denominations arise from prejudice, pride, or hostility. That is not good. However, others arise from honest attempts to obey Scripture. In such cases, the existence of denominations is a good thing: it allows Christians to teach with integrity without pretending to agree where they do not. And in the midst of this diversity, we should cultivate the “moderate and charitable feelings towards others,” as Dabney said (“What Is Christian Union?” in Discussions: Evangelical, vol. 2, ed. C. R. Vaughan [Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1891], 445).
Distinguishing Confessions from the Bible
It is possible for us to think too highly of our own denominations and to fail to distinguish properly between secondary and primary doctrines. So, how do we ensure that we keep our statements of faith in their proper place?
First, we recognize that many Christians do not agree with them. We should show respect for persons with whom we disagree. It is one thing to say that a minister is not a real minister. It is another to say that he must agree with what we believe the Scripture teaches in order to be a minister in our churches. We should not defrock or unchurch other Christians who disagree with us on matters not fundamental to salvation.
And note: this would not be true of the Bible. If someone said that they did not agree with the Bible itself, we could not say that they are a Christian.
Second, we submit to our statements of doctrine differently than we do the Bible. We do not say that they are 100% true. We do not say that we hold to everything that can be drawn from them by good and necessary consequence. We affirm them as good summaries of Scriptural teaching.
You find a good example of this in my own denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America. Officers affirm this question: “Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms of this Church as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scripture?” We are not saying that we believe it is 100% true. We are saying that this confession teaches the system of doctrine that is also found in Scripture.
We also specifically say that “our Constitution does not require the candidate’s affirmation of every statement and/or proposition of doctrine” (Book of Church Order, 21-4.e.). As Charles Hodge put it, “So it is one thing to adopt the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession, and quite another to adopt every proposition contained in that Confession. Many a man could do the one, who could not do the other” (“Adoption of the Confession of Faith,” 681). Again, this is very distinct from the way we treat the Bible.
Some people have feared that this is a wax nose, but our Book of Church Order says that you cannot say someone’s disagreement with the Confession of Faith is acceptable if it strikes at the vitals of religion or is hostile to the system. This has an historic meaning. It cannot be against the fundamental doctrines of Christianity (vitals of religion), and it cannot be contrary to the Reformed system (hostile to the system). The doctrines are interconnected. If you deny a proposition that you cannot hold without denying others, then it is hostile to the system. For example, you cannot hold to sinless perfection and to the Reformed view of sanctification in general. However, you can disagree with how you apply the Sabbath and still hold to the Reformed system, as many have done.
What is behind all this is a clear distinction between the Bible and our confession. They are not the same, and each church should consider how best to make this clear.
Third, it is one thing to embrace the teaching of the confession, another to embrace all the theologizing that has been done around it. For example, Robert Lewis Dabney, well-known for his orthodoxy, said concerning the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, “To the dispassionate mind, the dispute cannot but appear of small importance, and the grounds of both parties uncertain” (Systematic Theology, 198). In other words, he could hold to the substance of the doctrine without holding to the theologizing behind it. You will find his readiness to disagree with Reformed theologians of the past over and over again in his systematic theology while still maintaining the Reformed system (see Note 1 below).
I once watched a situation where someone assumed a doctrine was forbidden in his denomination, only to learn that the denomination actually allowed it and even provided a liturgical form for it. This happens everywhere—including among Presbyterians. We often move too quickly from our own instincts to “this is what our church teaches” (see Note 2 below).
Why Make Use of a Statement of Faith
Christians don’t write confessions because the Bible is unclear but because the truth must be taught, summarized, and handed down with integrity. Confessions let the church speak with clarity while disagreeing with charity; they allow us to teach without pretending to be infallible, and to recognize our deep unity with believers who confess the same gospel in other ways. This is why the church has always confessed its faith—and why we still do so today.
________
Photo by Hannah Smith on Unsplash
Note 1: Edward Dafydd Morris: “The adherents of such a system are always in danger of exalting the system unduly, even in comparison with other forms of evangelical faith or polity. They may place overmuch stress on what is really valuable in the system: they may magnify its points of difference, and extol these as primary excellences: they may become blind to its remaining weaknesses or imperfections. And, from this experience, the descent is gradual and easy to narrowness, to intolerance, to partisanship and dogmatism, and all the other errors into which undue denominational zeal, under whatever system, may plunge even sincere and earnest and thoughtful minds” (“Catholic Elements in Presbyterianism,”, 101).
Note 2: Morris on this phenomenon: “The dogmatizing literalist is generally disappointed in his search for the very word which would give authority to his private and patented dogma; and if, perchance, he finds the desired indorsement somewhere, he is perplexed to discover suddenly, at another point, some balancing word or phrase which cuts down his conceit, and teaches him that the confession was made for no class of mere sectaries, for no differentiating school of theorists, but for all who receive, in good faith, the truths essential to the Calvinistic system” (“Catholic Elements in Presbyterianism,” 112).