by R. LUCAS STAMPS & MATTHEW Y. EMERSON

Introduction

We were delighted this week when we saw that several Southern Baptist pastors and professors have made plans to propose an amendment to the Baptist Faith and Message (2000) to include the text of the Nicene Creed. We wholeheartedly support this proposed amendment and pray that Southern Baptists will eagerly and joyfully adopt this motion through the appropriate channels, beginning at this year’s annual convention. In this post, we would like to explain and defend our affirmation of this ancient symbol of the Christian faith.

What Is the Nicene Creed?

The Nicene Creed in its current form was a statement of faith adopted at the Council of Constantinople in 381. The creed gets its name from a previous iteration adopted at the Council of Nicaea in 325. These two early church councils convened in order to combat various heresies that had arisen in the early centuries of the church, especially Arianism and Eunomianism (which taught that the Son was created by the Father) and Macedonianism (which denied the deity of the Holy Spirit). The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (the creed’s fuller title), articulates the position of historic Christian orthodoxy on the doctrine of the Trinity. Here is the text of the Creed:

Note that the Creed has a trinitarian shape, following ancient articulations of the rule of faith: there are three articles, one on each of the three divine persons. Note also the Creed’s trinitarian substance: it affirms the unity and equality of the three persons (“of one substance,” “together is worshiped and glorified,” etc.) and the real, eternal distinctions between the divine persons, understood in terms of their eternal relations of origin (“begotten of the Father before all ages,” “who proceeds from the Father and the Son,” etc.). In short, the Nicene Creed summarizes the the biblical teaching on the most fundamental articles of the Christian faith: the Trinity, the person and work of Jesus Christ, the person and work of the Holy Spirit, the ministry of the church, and the last things. It has been the benchmark for Christian orthodoxy for the better part of two millennia.

Three Reasons to Support the Addition of the Creed to the BF&M (2000)

So, why should Southern Baptists support the addition of this Creed to our own confessional document. We suggest three main reasons.

1. Because Affirming the Creed is Biblical

As each generation of Christians since the fourth century has rightly noted, the Nicene Creed’s statements are thoroughly biblical. It covers the full slate of major loci in Christian theology – the Trinity, Christology, salvation, creation, Scripture, the church, and the last things. To take the Creed’s focal point as ours, its phrases concerning the Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are derived from and grounded in Holy Scripture. Regarding the full divinity of all three persons, the Bible teaches this in a variety of ways. For instance, each of the three persons share the one divine name into which every Christian is baptized (Matt. 28:19); they each carry out and accomplish the same divine actions, like creation in Genesis 1, in which the Father creates by speaking his Word and sending his Spirit; they each possess the same divine attributes, like omniscience, as seen in the Spirit’s knowledge of God’s own mind which Paul describes in 1 Cor. 1:10–12; and they each receive worship reserved for God alone, as seen, for instance, in John’s prostration before Jesus in Revelation 1.

But the Nicene Creed also affirms how God can be both one and three at the same time. As the fourth century pro-Nicene rightly noted, we cannot distinguish between the three persons through attributing different actions, attributes, appellations (names), or adoration to different divine persons. This would result in tritheism. Instead, the only way to distinguish between the three persons in God’s own inner life apart from creation and redemption is the only way that is taught in Scripture – through their eternal relations of origin. The Nicene Creed confesses he Son’s eternal generation from the Father and the Holy Spirit’s eternal procession from the Father and the Son, both of which are taught in the Bible, and in a variety of ways. For instance, the personal names themselves indicate this kind of relation. What is a Son if not of the same nature as his Father? The language of eternal generation communicates this relation between the Father and the Son. Additionally, particular texts, like Prov. 8:22–31 and John 5:26 for eternal generation and John 15:26 for eternal procession, teach this doctrine directly.

The Creed’s other statements could be defended in similar fashion. In fact, most of the other statements in the Creed are taken directly from particular verses, like “baptism for the remission of sins,” which is a quotation of Acts 2:38. If they aren’t direct quotes, then they at the very least very clearly summarize biblical teaching on a particular topic. So, for instance, “born of the virgin Mary” is not a line from the Bible, but it accurately summarizes, for example, Isa. 7:14 and Matt. 1:18–25. In other words, rather than being some kind of imposition of philosophical categories or unbiblical ecclesiastical dogma onto the Bible, the Nicene Creed’s language is derived from the Bible itself and accurately reflects the teaching of the Bible.

2. Because Affirming the Creed Has Important Baptist Precedents

Affirming the Nicene Creed is not new in Baptist history. The rich confessional tradition among Baptists, both General (Arminian) and Particular (Calvinist) Baptists, has often made use of creedal language. For example, the influential Second London Confession of Faith (adopted in 1689) utilized specifically creedal formulations in its statement on the Trinity and the Incanration: “one substance”, “begotten”, “proceeding,” “very…God,” and so on. Baptist historian Thomas Nettles summarizes well the conciliar nature of the 1689 confession: its “language derives from the vocabulary and concepts of the early church councils and reflects the decisions expressed in the creeds of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon.”[1]

This dependence upon the Creed’s language continued to a greater or lesser extent in subsequent Baptist confessions as well. The American version of the Second London Confession, the Philadelphia Confession retained all of this creedal language about the Trinity and Christ the Mediator. The Philadelphia Confession was the most common statement of faith among Southern Baptist churches at the time of the founding of the convention in 1845. So, we see that creedal affirmation was not limited to the early British Baptists, but was common in the New World as well.

Later statements of faith continued to show deference to creedal language, although not always with the same precision as the older confessional symbols. For example, the Abstract of Principles, the charter confession of faith of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, speaks of God revealing himself as “Father, Son and Holy Spirit each with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence or being.” The BF&M itself (in its of its iterations), employs this same language of an undivided “nature, essence, or being” in the Godhead, as well as distinctions based on “personal attributes” (traditionally, these were understood in terms of “begetting” and “proceeding” etc.). In short, the entire sweep of the Baptist confessional tradition reveals a direct dependence upon creedal language to describe the doctrine of the trinity.

In addition to this general creedal dependence, at least two Baptist confessions included the full text of the three ecumenical creeds. First, the Orthodox Creed, an important seventeenth-century General Baptist confession compiled by the influential Baptist theologian Thomas Monck, affirms and includes the text of all three ecumenical creeds in Article 38. Echoing the language of the Articles of Religion, the confession begins as follows,

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 b considered, and better understood of all Men, we have here Printed them under their several Titles . . . 

Notice that the article insists repeatedly that these creeds are thoroughly biblical and are foundational for Christian discipleship. The article then quotes the full text of all three creeds.

Second, the Orthodox Catechism, a seventeenth-century Baptist version of the Heidelberg Catechism written by the Particular Baptist minister Hercules Collins likewise affirms the three ecumenical creeds. Collins follows the Heidelberg on most points but revises and adapts the portions on the ordinances in predictably Baptist ways. But interestingly, Collins makes another addition that was not present in the Heidelberg Catechism: he adds as an appendix the full text of the three ecumenical creeds. In the preface of Collins’s catechism, he writes,

I have proposed three creeds to your consideration, which ought thoroughly to be believed and embraced by all those that would be accounted Christians, viz. the Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, and the Creed commonly called the Apostles. The last of which contains the sum of the Gospel, which is industriously opened and explained. And I beseech you do not slight it because of its form, nor antiquity, nor because supposed to be composed by men; neither because some that hold it maintain some errors, or whose conversation may not be correspondent to such fundamental principles of salvation; but take this for a perpetual rule, that whatever is good in any, owned by any, whatever error or vice it may be mixed withal, the good must not be rejected for the error or vice sake, but owned, commended, and accepted.

At the end of the catechism, he includes the text of the three creeds. As one of the signatories of the influential Second London Confession of Faith, Collins can hardly be seen as a theological outlier among early Baptists.

In sum, the most influential confessions in Baptist history have been directly dependent upon creedal language, and at least two important Baptist symbols have included the full text of the creeds themselves. If we look beyond the confessional tradition to individual Baptist theologians, we see the same pattern emerge. John Gill, perhaps the most important Baptist theologian of the eighteenth century, affirms the importance of the creeds in the introduction to his widely-read Body of Divinity, and he goes on to exposit the doctrine of the Trinity in explicitly creedal language. In a nineteenth-century American context, James Boyce, the first president of Southern Seminary, explicitly affirmed the doctrinal terms of the creeds, including the linchpin doctrine of the Son’s eternal generation. In the twentieth century, none other than W. A. Criswell, one of the champions of theological orthodoxy in the SBC, also affirmed the creeds in a 1974 sermon:

First, there are three ancient universally accepted confessions of faith or creeds.  You remember, we said “creed” comes from the first word of the Apostles’ Creed, “I believe, credo, I believe.”  So a creed is an expression of doctrinal belief, what the Bible teaches.

Now there were three of those ancient universally accepted creeds.  They are formerly or tacitly acknowledge by the Greek, the Latin, and the Protestant churches.  They are called the ecumenical or general symbols.  And those three universally accepted and acknowledged confessions of faith are the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.[2]

Far from being a departure from Baptist identity, then, affirming historic Christian orthodoxy in the form of the Nicene Creed has been a part of Baptist identity from its inception.

3. Because Affirming the Creed Fosters Theological and Spiritual Formation.

So, affirming the Nicene Creed is both biblical and Baptist, but it is also beneficial. Affirming the Creed in our confessional document would have the advantage of endorsing it and commending its use in the context of local church ministry. The Orthodox Creed had already spelled out these benefits with precision: the Creed aids our instruction of God’s word when it is “catechistically opened” in the context of preaching, teaching, and instructing both young and old. Further, the Creed is an aid “to prevent heresie.” If Baptists were to explicitly affirm the Creed, teach it in our churches, and even recite it together in our worship services, it would go a long way toward inoculating us from erroneous views about the trinity. The Creed teaches us the language of carefully worded biblical orthodoxy. As such, it provides a time-tested framework for interpreting and applying God’s word to our lives. Affirming the biblical truths summarized in the Creed will aid our prayer life, our worship, our evangelism, our preaching, our counseling, our discipleship, and more.

Answering Some Potential Objections 

We want, finally, to answer a couple of potential objections. First, some object to this motion on the basis that it sets (or participates in) a bad precedent with respect to amending the BFM 2000. Given the controversy over the process of last year’s amendment to the confession from the convention floor, so the objection goes, shouldn’t we slow down, amend the process to amend the BFM2K, and the come back to this?

We understand and sympathize with this objection. We shouldn’t be cavalier about altering our confession of faith. However, there are a few reasons why we feel this doesn’t qualify as hasty, cavalier, or, ultimately, indefensible. For one thing, this is an easy affirmation. The Nicene Creed is one of, if not the (depending on when you date the Apostles’ Creed), most ancient confessions of the church’s faith. It has been readily affirmed and defended by every generation of Christians since its publication. For another, the creeds statements, and its structure, are thoroughly biblical, whether through quoting specific texts or through accurately summarizing biblical teaching on given topics. Finally, according to Baptist distinctives, we need to allow for "extemporaneous" governance via the messengers. Baptist polity says that we're governed in our local churches by our regenerate, baptized members, i.e. who are equally indwelt by the Spirit of God. This means that a local church ought to be able to make decisions in the moment, if the Spirit leads in that way. The same is true, analogously, at associational meetings, including the SBC annual meeting. The messengers should be able to be led to act quickly & decisively.

A second potential objection is that the Creed's statements, or at least some of them, are unbiblical or, at best, reflections of the early church’s misinterpretations of biblical teaching on particular topics. Examples of this include "baptism for the remission of sins," the affirmation of "one, holy, catholic, apostolic church," and the "filioque" clause (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son). We do not have adequate space here to defend each of these, or others, in turn. Instead, we would point to this explainer video we made to address precisely such questions. It is sufficient to note here that phrases such as “baptism for the remission of sins” are taken from Scripture (see Acts 2:38) and are sufficiently broad that they have garnered widespread affirmation among various groups, who have interpreted them within their own unique theologies. Again, Baptists are no different, as the historical precedents cited above demonstrate.

Conclusion

In the end, we confess, alongside the 17th century General Baptists,  “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 . . .”

[1] Thomas J. Nettles, The Baptists: Key People Involved in Forming a Baptist Identity, vol. 1, Beginnings in Britain (Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2005), 37,

[2] https://wacriswell.com/sermons/1974/the-great-confessions-of-christendom/ Thanks to Jake Stone for pointing us to this resource.