Apostles Creed Part I

In this age there is the illusion that "modern" is superior to "ancient," "new" superior to "old." Accompanying that illusion is the glut of new information that discourages our thinking carefully about anything. But those of us who call ourselves "Conservative" Christians must feel uneasy about accepting this illusion, for it clouds our respect for "ancient" scripture. It discourages us from examining the "old" ways of the early Christians.

The moderns feel they have given the lie to Solomon who said

"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, "Look! This is something new"? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time." Ecclesiastes 1:9-10

But Solomon was not wrong. Even this modernism is not new. In his next verse Solomon says

"There is no remembrance of men of old, and even those who are yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow."

And a couple of verses later he draws his famous conclusion

"I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind."

That is as true of our own age as it was of his. We fancy that we have come up with newer and better theology & philosophy only because we have such an antipathy for studying history and the theology & philosophy of the ancients that we don't realize that the ideas we most value were discussed hundreds of years ago. Nietzsche, for example (still a potent influence in the Modern world), in his cynical "Doctrine of Eternal Recurrence" was doing little more than echoing Ecclesiastes.

With that introduction, let me jump back to say that we Conservatives must (by definition) accept the Scriptures as Authoritative. There are Liberals who would quibble with words & claim that they too accept Scriptures as authoritative; so we go further and say they are "Inerrant."

"Wait," they quibble further, "what do you mean by 'inerrant'? You don't have the original autographs; so which text is inerrant? So quickly we have gotten away from the ultimate conclusion that the Conservative is Conservative & the Liberal is Liberal in order to talk about the state of the ancient texts. But this quibble is hardly worth exploring. There has been so much textual research accomplished (much of it done by Liberals) that we are very confident that we are close to having the original texts.

[I am going to ignore, for the sake of this discussion, the Fundamentalist claim that the Byzantine Texts (the so called Textus Receptus), though being later in date, have pre-eminence by virtue of having been continuously used by the Church. The differences between the Byzantine Texts & the Local (earlier) Texts are not huge. I use translations based on the Local Texts, but the commentary on The Apostles Creed will be using the Textus Receptus, the basis for the KJV, and I am anticipating that I will find few conflicts.]

What we mean by "inerrant" is that Scripture is the revealed Word of God. But even here the Liberal may quibble & say that he too believes much the same thing. The Conservative needs to push a bit, become specific, in order to force the Liberal to admit his Liberalism. This "pushing" can occur (often) by addressing the nature of Jesus or the Trinity. If the Conservative & Liberal argue long enough, differences will eventually arise, but even these differences are not new. The early church had Liberals doing the same quibbling & making the same objections; except in those days they were called "heretics."

[The term "heretic" eventually came to have a pejorative sense; however the original sense of the word had to do with choosing to follow ones own beliefs as opposed to the "orthodox" beliefs; which isn't so very far from what we mean by the modern term "Liberal."]

The early church had to "push" just as we do today in order to pin down a persons beliefs (or disbeliefs). Their method was to use "Creeds," a stringing together of several doctrinal affirmations. One needed to confess Jesus Christ before men (especially during the Baptismal process) & this confession needed to be so worded as to include the orthodox & exclude the heretic. They have the same function today. It is difficult to go back in time & grasp the issues of the early Creeds, but if one is willing to make the journey, the destination will be rewarding. Still, for such an ancient journey one will need a guide. The oldest of all the Creeds is The Apostles Creed, and many would say that no better guide could be found than Herman Witsius (1636-1708), D.D., Professor of Divinity in the Universities of Franeker, Utrecht, and Leyden.

Witsius wrote his commentary on The Apostles Creed not for scholars, but for those under his instructions

"that the minds of the hearers must be so instructed, that they may attempt a careful examination of themselves, and be able to ascertain by infallible marks, whether they have a personal interest in the promises of the Gospel; -- and that this must be so strongly and pathetically urged, that the most secure may be roused from their fatal lethargy, and every hearer induced to inquire, with eager solicitude, into the state of his own soul."

[From "The Author's Preface to the third edition. Interestingly, much of this preface is taken up with an attack made against his theology by a certain 'celebrated' John Van Der Waeyen. The Creeds, used to define Conservative Theology, have always been under attack.]

A word about the text: The text is an uncopyrighted reprint (1993) by The den Dulk Christian Foundation in Escondido, California of an 1823 translation by Donald Fraser ("Minister of the Gospel, Kennoway"). It is Distributed by the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company & should be available in Christian Book stores & catalogs. I bought my copy (in 2 volumes, by the way) from Great Christian Books for $26.75.

My approach: At this point, I have only read enough to ascertain that the subject seems interesting & is well handled. I propose to take up points, as I go through Witsius' text, that interest me & discuss them. And since (though I have tried mightily to avoid it) I am a creature of our age, it is possible these discussions may be of interest to others.

One last matter, the Creed itself. Since the early church continued to be confronted with disagreements, the Apostles Creed was dynamic. As problems developed, new phrases were added to the Creed. The "Received Form" quoted from Philip Schaff's The Creeds of Christendom, Volume 1, with additions since "The Old Roman Form" in brackets is as follows:

1. I believe in God the Father Almighty [Maker of heaven and earth].
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord;
3. Who was [conceived] by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary;
4. [Suffered] under Pontius Pilate, was crucified [dead], and buried [He descended into Hell (Hades)];
5. The third day he rose from the dead;
6. He ascended into heaven; and sitteth on the right hand of [God] the Father [Almighty];
7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
8. [I believe] in the Holy Ghost;
9. The Holy [Catholic] Church [The communion of the saints];
10. The forgiveness of sins;
11. The resurrection of the body (flesh);
12. [And the life everlasting].