The Apostles Creed Part II

Witsius' first chapter is on the authority of the creed. This was my initial concern as well. I was not always of the opinion I am now and wondered what I needed a creed for. Didn't I have the Bible? Why was a creed necessary? What is the authority for THE APOSTLES CREED ?

In the earliest references to this creed, it is maintained that the Apostles themselves were the authors of it. St. Augustine is supposed, in his 115, sermon to have addressed the apostolic authority as follows:

Peter said, I believe in God the Father Almighty: John , -- Maker of heaven and earth: James , -- and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord: Andrew , -- who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary: Philip , -- suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried: Thomas , -- he descended into hell, the third day he rose again from the dead: Bartholomew , -- he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty: Matthew , -- from thence he shall come again to judge the quick and the dead: James , the son of Alpheus, -- I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy catholic Church: Simon Zelotes , -- the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins: Jude , the brother of James, -- the resurrection of the body: and Matthias completed the work, saying -- and the life everlasting. Amen.

But modern day evidence for Apostolic authority is lacking. The Church Fathers offered such arguments as "why would it be known as the APOSTLES CREED if the Apostles weren't the author?" And if Augustine [since I have considerable respect for his reasoning ability] truly did advance the above statement in his sermon, he may have been saying nothing more than that the authority for the Creed can be found in Scripture. What better authority, for example, for Jesus having descended into hell & risen on the third day than doubting Thomas who was especially confronted by the risen Jesus & forced to place his hands upon the wounds, who then confessed "my Lord and my God"?

There is no point [IMO] in rehashing all of the arguments about the authority of the Creed. It probably wasn't authored by the Apostles, but it does have Apostolic authority for all of its statements, and this was believed from the earliest times by those considered orthodox [whom I will attempt, as much as possible, to refer to as Conservative Christians to eliminate confusion with groups who use the term "orthodox," such as Greek Orthodox in their official designation. We now have the peculiar situation where certain (I have been told by member of the Russian Orthodox Church) churches, designated "orthodox" have become Liberal.]

But we still haven't answered the question "why have such a creed?"

Witsius says [I, 11 - meaning Volume I, page 11 of Witsius THE APOSTLES CREED ] that "in the original simplicity of the Christian Religion, no Creed existed, excepting that which our Lord delivered (in Matthew 28:19): "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, 'baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the 'Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'"

"Heresies, [I, 12] however, increasing with the lapse of time, the church was no longer permitted to continue in that state of primitive simplicity. In order to distinguish the doctrine from heresy, and the true sons of the church from heretics and their followers, several articles were gradually added, and reared as a superstructure on this simple foundation.

There was considerable discussion of this matter of excluding heretics from the church. Hilary in his work against Arianism DE TRINITAE contended " at great length, that the profession of the Trinity ought alone to suffice, and should be held sufficient for the exclusion of heretics" [I, 13]. Being a veteran of countless discussions [read 'arguments'] with Liberals & members of what the Conservatives would call 'cults,' I feel a good deal of sympathy for Hilary's position. The Trinity seems to be a great sticking point for all of them. They don't have the same problems with the Trinity, but most seem to want to demote Jesus to man. As Whitehead (Process Theology) has said, if you believe that Jesus is of human substance, then he cannot at the same time be of God-substance, and so they hold that Jesus is a man and not God. An exceptional man to be sure, but still only a man.

As to the matter of the Holy Spirit, it is not "God," but the force of God. Although this heresy predated modern times, it is difficult to entertain this concept, now, without visions of Luke Skywalker. And perhaps because of the influence of Schopenhauer it is easier for many to think of God as "force" and not the God of the Bible. Such people would make no pretense of being Christian (as the Liberals & Cults do), but would be content with an eastern view of this matter: there is a force in the Universe that has principles we must strive to learn, as Buddha did sitting under his Bo tree until he received enlightenment (from the 'force' -- known in his milieu as 'Brahma').

Once Jesus is removed from the trinitarian equation, the Liberal is able to wax eloquent on the Christ consciousness . This is the ideal we must strive for. It is the enlightenment that Buddha had but didn't fully understand. It is what Jesus had in full measure & what we can have if we seek it with all our heart and mind and soul. Did not Albert Sweitzer have it when he poured out his life in Africa? Did not Deidreich Bonhoffer have it when he refused to compromise with the Nazis and lost his life as a consequence?

What, for example, of the Fundamentalist Watchman Nee who wrote voluminously about Christian holiness & then was martyred in a Chinese Communist prison? Did he have the Christ consciousness? The Liberals aren't so sure about that. They like those who give their lives for more [read 'politically'] acceptable causes. The Liberals couldn't very well include such martyrs as Watchman Nee in their hagiography, for Nee not only had a strict view of holiness but a strict view of Conservatism as well.

I have met those who hold to a "Jesus Only" belief in lieu of a Trinitarian belief, but (as near as I can tell without having studied their theology) they seem to take a Darby/Chafer/Scofield derived literalism into a new dimension without benefit of a knowledge of the original languages or a considered study of Church history or theology. If one picks up a translation (especially the KJV because many of its expressions have become archaic & hard to understand) and feels "empowered by the Holy Spirit" [I read 'self-deceived'] to correct the errors of the Church, then one can emphasize some particular feature or interpretation at the expense of a more balanced view and create a new religion [cult]. It is being done all the time, and they all claim their right to our time. How do we know they don't have the real truth unless we study their teachings?

Well, how do we know? How did our simple [the highly educated would always have had recourse to more elaborate arguments, but the Creeds were in their arsenal as well] to brethren of earlier ages know? They had the simple expedient of recourse to the Creeds. If the Liberal or Cult member cannot swear to the APOSTLES CREED , for example, then he is ipso facto a 'Heretic,' and needs to be evangelized. And if he resists evangelization, then he must be excluded from the Church. I don't know if it was ever that simple in earlier ages, but I do know that it doesn't seem to be very simple for us. We have been influenced by some powerful philosophies, and it is hard to break loose from them in order to take a simple view of ORTHODOXY vs HERESY . I'll consider (as an example) one such influence:

I am tempted to say that we have all been influenced by Existentialism [but there are undoubtedly some, through the wise instruction of parents or teachers, who avoided this influence. In its Sartian form we are led to believe that truth is relative rather than absolute. Since there is no God, one person's truth is as good as another's. Since truth is relative, we must make laws that permit the widest possible latitude to belief. The old Christian belief that there is an absolute truth is ignorance and superstition. Conservatives have accepted unprovable myths, but let us tolerate them as well, we will be generous in our toleration . TOLERATION is an important component of Existentialism. Since truth is relative, we must tolerate those who disagree with us; otherwise society will be reduced to such chaos as occurred during the Crusades and the Inquisition.

Existentialism has been so influential in our society that it would be difficult [IMO] to pull it loose without destroying the whole thing. But notice that Existentialism is inconsistent with a belief in Conservatism. If one values Christian truth to the point of wanting to evangelize non-believers, then one has a certain view of Orthodoxy and Heresy, and such concepts are nonsense in the Existential philosophy.

And so, gentle reader, if you wish to follow this discussion further, you should be prepared to give up your Existentialism and entertain the idea that truth is Absolute rather than Relative . This absolute truth, Conservatives believe, was revealed in Scripture and held by the Church. The Church has had a long struggle against heresy and we modern Conservatives lay claim to that heritage and from time to time (as in this present discussion) look back on it not just as an historical curiosity but as wise teaching for our own time.

Lawrence