| Title | : | The Creedal Imperative |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 1433521903 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9781433521904 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 208 |
| Publication | : | First published September 13, 2012 |
The role of confessions and creeds is the subject of debate within evangelicalism today as many resonate with the call to return to Christianity's ancient roots. Advocating for a balanced perspective, Carl Trueman offers an analysis of why creeds and confessions are necessary, how they have developed over time, and how they can function in the church of today and tomorrow.
The Creedal Imperative Reviews
-
Apparently, this book is too cool for a subtitle. Carl Trueman has a market on cool by rebelling against cool. Especially skinny jeans. But I digress. I’m thinking something like, “The Indicatives are Imperative.” But that’s just me.
Does your church catechize or teach with creeds? Sure it does. Trueman makes the case that all churches and all people have a creed, whether they admit it or not. “No creed but the Bible” just doesn’t exist, and is a creed in itself (maybe that’s a good subtitle). He points out that as soon as you ask someone what the Bible is about, they answer with a summation of their belief, a creed. So when someone is insisting that they do not have a creed, they “are being unintentionally disingenuous: they still have their creed or confession; they just will not write it down and allow you to look at it and scrutinize it in the light of Scripture. They are in a sense more authoritarian than the papacy (161).”
Although that line may sting a bit, the tone of this book actually shows both Trueman’s passion for history and his pastoral side. He argues for the biblical imperative of the need for creeds and confessions. One of the main Scriptures he uses is 2 Tim. 1:13, “Follow the pattern of sound words you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.” This is what the creeds and confessions help the church to do. They give us a tried and true vocabulary to help the church teach what is orthodox.
Many believe that creeds divide, or that they take away from the authority of Scripture. But Trueman aims to show that “Christians aren’t divided between those who have creeds and confessions and those who do not; rather, they are divided between those who have public creeds and confessions that are often improvised, unwritten, and thus not open to public scrutiny, not susceptible to evaluation and, crucially and ironically, not, therefore, subject to testing by Scripture to see whether they are true” (15). Our expressed creeds give us a platform to sharpen one another’s biblical understanding.
For those of you who expect a not-so fetching critique of the evangelical culture from Trueman, you won’t be let down, especially in Chapter 1; “The Cultural Case Against Creeds and Confessions”. This is a great chapter that emphasizes the value of history, language, and the church. While the tone is more teacherly and pastoral in tone, Trueman’s Truemanisms do tend to seep out here and there. My favorite is when he gives us his response to a student in one of his classes on the ancient church when she questioned the value of her attendance. After all, “’some documents written in the seventh century seem to have very little to do with’ her ministry.” I can only imagine the tension that her classmates felt in the room following that brazen comment. But Trueman’s response is perfect…”I suggested with every ounce of gentleness and tact I could muster that she might perhaps better ask herself not so much what relevance they have to her ministry but what relevance her ministry had to the church” (25, 26). This interaction reveals much of the individualistic attitudes that our culture holds regarding the church.
The reader will get a lesson on “The Foundations of Creedalism”, “The Early Church”, and the “Classical Protestant Confessions” (chapters 2-4) that is worth the price of the book. I especially enjoyed Chapter 5, “Confession as Praise”. There are many gems in this chapter. Right in the beginning we read, “Historically, one could make the argument that Christian theology as a whole is one long, extended reflection upon the meaning and significance of that most basic doxological declaration, ‘Jesus is Lord!’ and thus an attempt to provide a framework for understanding Christian praise” (135). What we know about God affects our praise and worship. The last chapter before the conclusion is “On the Usefulness of Creeds and Confessions”. In it, Trueman proves his case of the creedal imperative.
Unfortunately, a lot of people I know who don’t like creeds also don’t like reading books. And that is a shame, because this one is excellent. It has certainly strengthened my resolve and enlarged my affection for the great creeds and confessions that have been faithfully handed down to the church. -
Um livro atual e necessário que derruba os argumentos levantados por aqueles que negam a importância dos credos e confissões da igreja rejeitando o passado, as tradições eclesiásticas e as autoridades institucionais.
"O que ele realmente deveria ter dito era: tenho um credo, mas não vou escrevê-lo, assim vocês não o poderão criticar; vou identificar tanto o meu credo com a Bíblia que não serei capaz de criticá-lo também."
p. 215 -
Oh Trueman. You are like a wonderfully bitter IPA that is enjoyed by few, but the few that enjoy it love it to its fullest. Now, you'd be upset that this skinny jean, contemporary worshipping, craft beer loving (clearly), "New Testament church" abiding pretty young thing just compared you to a craft beer, but it's indelibly true. Though others have scorn toward you, you will forever be my favorite celebrity scholar.
This book is arguing that modern Protestant evangelical's who genuinely love the Bible ought to start using creeds and confessions in their congregations. While I don't necessarily think that I'll be petitioning my local body to using the Westminster Standards to guide our worship and practice and even though I think Trueman sometimes has a tendency to create stawmen, I do agree with much of what he argues for. Many churches today need to know the classic creeds and confessions of those who stood before them and repent of their chronological snobbery -- yes, and Amen!
More than anything, Trueman is simply a joy to read. His British wit is rich throughout and strikingly hilarious at times. It made me wish that Presbyterians from niche denoms would do standup routines ranting about evangelicals, "feelings", and Madonna. I would pay money for that. -
This book is incredibly technical, but worth the read. I could only read about 5-10 pages at a time because I really needed to soak in the content and ruminate on the arguments made throughout.
I can not really be called “confessional” as I kinda feel lost in my own convictions. I’m fence sitting between 1689 and the three forms of unity/WCF feeling torn. I’m a Baptist, which makes me even more lost because my current context smells more of “no creed than the Bible!” Than a confessional framework.
My husband and I both crave for a confessional church because of the stability and health of those churches. It offers safety as the confession(s) give rail guards to protect the lay person and the teachers. We currently attend a wonderful church that is not confessional, although we would affirm the creeds we do have many dispensational believers which also brings a “no creed but the Bible!” Element. Our church is complex, and we do have a constitution - but like Carl argues “why reinvent the wheel?”
At first, I was a little hesitant to accept his arguments on face value, but the more I read the more convinced I became.
I grew up in the no creed but the Bible atmosphere and I’ve seen how insane, abusive, and chaotic this can be. I very much see immense value in the creeds and confessions - and my husband and I pray that Lord willing we will find ourselves in a confessional church. Only God knows what is in store, and where we will end up theologically.
Overall 5/5 and worth the read. Especially in our current culturally context.Confessions and creeds are sneered at instead of warmly welcomed into Christian liturgy and private devotion. I do believe this needs to change. -
This book is a must read for all Christians, regardless of theological point-of-view. Dr. Trueman highlights the necessity of churches being honest about what they believe, in other words that "No Creed But the Bible" is in itself a creed.
While this book could have been better (longer and more in-depth explanations on some key points) it fills a necessary and much overlooked niche in current Christian writing. -
This book has a very important message. Creeds and Confessions are not mere meaningless tradition, but safeguards of truth. Trueman repeatedly brings his reader back to the Biblical injunctions to “hold fast to the traditions” handed to us, and keep the “form of sounds words.” Truth is not emotion; it is verbal. Words matter because there is such a thing as truth. For centuries the Church has borne witness to her commitment to the truth by using creeds and confessions as shorthand statements of her belief in what the Scriptures teach. Creeds and Confessions are always subordinate standards far below Scripture, but they do clarify what we believe the Bible to teach when we say, "I believe the Bible."
Some of the best observations are in the opening chapter of the book. First, Trueman details what makes creeds undesirable to contemporary Christians. Most of what he says points to the fact that we are products of our times, and are far too often unaware of our own preconceptions.
An important reason, Trueman argues, that creeds and confessions are disagreeable to modern Christians, is that we, as products of our times, have been infected by the world’s anti-authoritarianism. Trueman, rather brilliantly, points out the hypocrisy involved in this. We have an innate fear, distrust, and dislike of institutional authority. And yet, not all institution authority gets this treatment – only those that are “old,” i.e., the family and the church. But no one questions the institutional authority of talk show hosts, athletes, movie stars, and rock stars. Generally speaking, these people are the least qualified to discuss politics, science, sociology, economics, or religion, but this never stops them pontificating about these subjects. Nor does it stop the masses from swallowing everything they say and obsequiously obeying orders. The rejection of institutional authority is selective.
Dr. Trueman he points out the discontinuity that exists in our minds with the past. One cause is the loss of the basic concept of human nature. We are so used to thinking in the categories of identity politics, that the contributions of people from the past seem boring, and unmeaningful to us, because we don’t see ourselves sharing in the basic substratum of human nature. We’re white, we’re black, we’re Asian, we’re African, we’re male, we’re female, we’re Left-leaning, we’re Right-leaning. We see ourselves as all different – so no experience of anyone is thought to have meaning from anyone outside of his or her “demographic.” Fundamentally, this destroys any sense of indebtedness to the past. If truth is eternal, then truth understood in the past, and codified, is as relevant today as it was in the 4th century.
The first factor that does this is science. Trueman is careful to not be misunderstood here. He is merely pointing out that science, as a discipline, seeks to improve on past achievements. This makes it quite easy to believe that everything about the present is better than everything about the past. It’s hard to value a 17th century Confession, when you are operating on the presupposition that everything now is better than everything from the past.
Another factor that contributes to our lack of appreciation for creeds and confessions is technology. Trueman makes it clear that he is no luddite who would rather not have a cellphone or running water. But technology has, in many ways, inverted the flow of knowledge. In centuries past, sons learned a trade from their father and girls learned skills from their mother. The flow of knowledge was from the older generation to the younger. A girl learned to weave because Mom taught her the skill. A boy learned pewter-smithing techniques from Dad. But knowledge seldom flows this way anymore. Trueman relates an anecdote about him struggling to program a DVR. His little niece walks in the room, takes the remote, and in a couple seconds, has the task done. Knowledge, as Trueman observes, has reversed flow – from the young to the old. This undercuts the whole purpose of a Confession or Creed, for its primary purpose is to hand down knowledge from one generation to the next.
Finally, Trueman also points out how consumerism does the same thing. It reinforces the devaluation of the past by constantly appealing to our greed for new “stuff.” Advertising sell products by inducing in us the feeling that our life could be better in the future if we could get that thing that we don’t have now. And consumerism had made us utilitarians. Whether a statement is true or not is less important to us than whether or not it gives us the desired results. This, says Trueman, explains the contents of your local Christian bookstore. Countless books on dieting, financial planning, sex and marriage, etc., demonstrate our view of life that only results matter. If we believe in the Trinity or the bodily resurrection of Christ, it is only because it serves some useful purpose for us right now. Whether it is true or not, is irrelevant.
Trueman does an excellent job of vindicating creeds and confessions from the ludicrous charge of usurping authority over Scripture. By constantly appealing to the biblical injunction to keep the “form of sound words,” he highlights the fact that the actual possession of a confession or creed is obedience to this biblical mandate.
The chapter on the confessions of the Reformation era has some of the most beautiful descriptions you’ll ever read of the Thirty-Nine Articles, The Three Forms of Unity, The Book of Concord, and the Westminster Standards. And he does a good job of handling briefly wherein they differ from one another.
There are a few flaws in the book, which to my mind, greatly undermine the value of the book, or at least, undermine what it is recommending. First things first: Trueman reminds his readers repeatedly that he is a Presbyterian, and as such, he subscribes to the Westminster Standards. The Westminster Confession, as well as the two Catechisms, make it abundantly clear that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the final authority – the sole arbiter in all theological questions regarding doctrine and practice. The simplest way to see this in practice, is what is called the Analogy of Faith, summarized in the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture. But on more than one occasion, Dr. Trueman resorts to extrabiblical history in order to explain a passage of Scripture. He cites an intertestamental tradition regarding a passage in Isaiah in order to explain a passage from Mark. This move is problematic for a number of reasons.
A. It implies that the person who is not privy to intertestamental history and traditions, is unable to interpret Scripture accurately. That is plain, old-fashioned Gnosticism. It’s not very far removed from the Old Testament scholars whose whole reading of the Old Testament is understood through the lens of Ancient Near Eastern literature. If I act as if I need a PhD in ANE literature and culture in order to understand Scripture, then I have forsaken the Westminster Confession of Faith’s position on the primacy of Scripture and its self-interpreting nature.
B. It implies that the New Testament authors were indebted to extrabiblical literature and tradition for the content of their books. This is an outright denial of the Protestant doctrine of Inspiration. If we believe that all of Scripture is verbally inspired by God, then it does not matter whether or not Mark or Paul knew anything about intertestamental literature and traditions. In fact, it wouldn’t matter if either of them had ever read the Old Testament. Nothing that any Biblical author wrote has its origin in himself. It all comes from God.
Another example of this sort of thinking is the blind acceptance of the notion that certain portions of the New Testament are creeds or hymns in current use at the time of the writing of the epistle. This, again, grants authorship of some portions of Scripture to someone else than the Holy Spirit speaking through His prophets and apostles. This is clearly at odds with the Westminster Confession’s doctrine of Scripture.
There is another serious flaw that surfaces in the discussion of the Three Forms of Unity. When treating the Canons of Dort, Trueman rather casually remarks that today Arminians are “just another denomination,” and then he goes on to describe the political strife of the 17th century that gave rise to the Heidelberg Catechism, and eventually lead to the Synod of Dort in 1618-1619. The problem with this position is deeper than the whitewashing of Arminianism into “just another denomination.” Assuming this to be true (It isn’t), it still undermines the usefulness and meaningfulness of both the Heidelberg Catechism and the Canons of Dort by making them more a political accomplishment than a theological one. If they are theological documents which have symbolic status, and they only have such status due to political maneuvering, then why should they be binding at all? In fact, they are merely historical relics of a bunch of old, dead white men, completely separated from us by race, culture, language and worldview. It may be hip to inject politics into theological discussions of Church history, but it isn’t accurate, not is it fair to our forefathers in the faith who bequeathed these Confessions to us. This leads back to the “just another denomination,” remark. If this is true, or if Trueman really believes this, then the Canons of Dort are sectarian rubbish, the sooner forgotten, the better. The Canons anathematize (i.e.’ curse as damnable error) the doctrinal position of everyone in this “just another denomination.” I do not see how this doesn’t undermine the central purpose of the book.
I might mention too, that it is a well-known fact that a frightening majority of ordained Presbyterians (including faculty members of institutions such as Westminster Theological Seminary) do not hold to the Westminster Confession’s doctrine of creation (It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, IN THE SPACE OF SIX DAYS; and all very good. – WCF IV.1). Theistic Evolution, in direct contradiction to WCF IV, is held and open taught by men in direct, blatant, flagrant violation of ordination vows and oaths of subscription. It does no good to praise the merits of confessionalism when your confessionalism allows you to “reinterpret” whole sections of your confession in light of the latest scientific theory or fad – especially when that theory was invented and developed by men whose sole purpose in doing so was to discredit the Scriptural doctrine of Creation. It’s no surprise to me that the same people advocating theistic evolution are also gung-ho over Biblical Theology and opposed to Systematic Theology. What else is Biblical Theology but the application of Darwinistic evolution to theology? Just as all life-forms are believed to have evolved over time, likewise the content of Divine revelation has evolved over time.
I would certainly rate the book much higher were it not for these deeply troubling issues. They seem to me to undermine the whole purpose of the book. -
Excelente defesa do confessionalismo bíblico!
-
Trueman is as enjoyable to read as he is enjoyable to hear. This book contends for the abiding validity of creeds and confessions and their value to the modern church. Everyone has a creed and confession; the issue is whether that creed is public and open to public scrutiny or private and unquestionable. He details the development of creeds and confessions, especially as it developed into confessional Reformed circles, defending such creeds as biblical and healthy for the local church.
-
Loved it.
Not long ago, I was wary of creeds and confessions. Isn’t that like what Catholics do?
It didn’t occur to me that we all hold to various creeds and confessions - it’s just a matter of whether they’re written down or not.
Any time someone would say “the Heidelberg catechism says…” or “the Belgic confession says..” I’d think “who cares what they say? What does the BIBLE say??” - - - then I actually read the Heidelberg catechism and the Belgic confession and whoops, I was wrong. They’re actually good. I was shocked at how beautiful, clear, sound and well, biblical, they are.
The Creedal Imperative is totally enjoyable. I laughed out loud many times. He makes great point after great point after great point. Some imagery he paints is just too good. This part made me giggle for like 15min:
"No Christian, if asked by a friend what the Bible teaches, is simply going to start reading aloud at Genesis 1:1 and not stop until Revelation 22:21"
Trueman is so fun to read. Highly recommend. -
Trueman makes a compelling case for the necessity of creeds and confessions. He consistently reiterates the fact one may profess to hold to no creed but the bible, but that this is a misguided philosophy that merely demonstrates a flawed personal creed in and of itself. This flawed creed is detrimental to both the individual and the community of believers that he worships with (His chapter on the liturgical implications of our creeds is absolutely fantastic).
He expounds on the historical and basic contextual narratives of the classic creeds (Apostles, Seven Ecumenical Councils, Athanasian, Anglican Articles, The Book of Concord, The Three Forms of Unity, Westminster Standards, etc).
I found his explanation of The Rule to be very helpful. He demonstrates the way in which ancient church figures such as Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Ignatius sought to uphold the doctrinal standards of the teachings of the apostles by providing summaries of those beliefs. Thus, we see the significance of the use of creeds from the earliest years of the church.
You will find the same colorful portrayal of the historical setting in which the aforementioned creeds took place and their relevance today.
It is a growing trend to reject any notion of a creedal imperative, but Trueman is both defiant and faithful in his rejection of it. -
This was a very accessible read; grounding the use of Christian creeds and confessions not just in the tradition of the early church, but even from scripture itself: the sound form of words.
I know many, even so-called Reformed Christians, whose argument against confessions is that "they aren't scripture", "they aren't biblical", "it's legalism", etc. Simplistic arguments which are shown to be specious by the end of this short book. Trueman isn't arguing for the infallibility of creeds and confessions, but against the alternative to them: something that isn't written down and isn't capable of being critiqued. If anything, creeds, confessions, and catechisms actually allow for genuine discourse about one's doctrinal position.
If the American church is going to regain historical and doctrinal literacy, they're going to have to embrace the theological standards which have stood the test of time, and this book is a helpful explanation why. -
Trueman hammers home the importance and utility of creeds for the Christian church in this book. The last chapter provides a great summary of Trueman's theses and the chapter on creeds in the early church gives a helpful summary of the early ecumenical creeds/councils.
-
This is a fantastic book. I have been deeply challenged by the content of this book. Carl Trueman makes a very good case for the holding to and use of creeds and confessions in churches and within denominations, and does so utterly convincingly for me. Many errors rife within church life in the western world would be avoided if there wee more adherence to the sort of structure provided by a confession of faith.
The phrase "I have no creed but the bible" sounds so Norn Ireland and so sound, but Trueman exposes the fallacy of this position really clearly. I blush to think that I may have said similar things in the past. I'm off to learn the Apostles' Creed! -
Une défense et une présentation de pourquoi le christianisme est une religion de nature *confessionnelle* et pourquoi et comment il faut inclure les confessions de foi et les catéchismes formels dans le protestantisme, pour avoir un christianisme digne de Jésus.
Les premiers chapitres m'avaient laissé une impression mitigée, mais les derniers sont extrêmement efficaces et convaincants! Il donne envie d'agir. -
This is a great book for anyone with the desire to learn the value of creeds. For someone new to Creedal confessions and their merit, this book cleared up a lot of misconceptions and also addresses many unwarranted or misguided concerns I had regarding creeds. With that said, I also think individuals more acquainted with creeds would benefit from this book at well. Trueman is a brilliant thinker and wordsmith and I cannot imagine someone NOT benefitting from this book! The writing style is more complex than most authors, but the intellectual work out is worth the spiritual benefit this book has to offer in advocating for the Christian creeds. Take up and read!
-
Recomendado 100%
-
In the proper place and frame of reference, Creeds/Confessions/Catechisms are extremely helpful to the Christian in the study of the Word and to be commended. While helpful throughout, Trueman's best argument is that we all subscribe to a confession in our minds - the expediency of a written confession is that it can be scrutinized and debated by others, providing a safeguard of sorts from heresies contrived in the mind. Obviously each one should be held up to scripture, but holding scripture as our final and inerrant authority, we should find the task doable.
-
Creeds have long played an important part in the history of the Church. The early church met at councils to discuss important doctrinal issues directly related to the work of Christ, the Trinity and more. Since creeds have played a huge role in helping Christians and the Church to fight against heresy and define orthodoxy from the Bible it goes to reason that some people may question the role of creeds and whether they are biblical. It’s important to note an important distinction at this point that creeds are only helpful in so far as the teaching in in them is biblical. In his new book Dr. Carl Trueman one of the most respected church history professors in evangelicalism of our day has written The Creedal Imperative to argue that “creeds and confessions are vital to the present and future well-being of the church” (7).
Dr. Trueman sets forth to contend that “creeds and confessions are thoroughly consistent with the belief that Scripture alone is the unique source of revelation and authority” (14). Everyone has a creed which means the only difference is whether one is prepared to be honest and open about this fact. Dr. Trueman states that, “only once you have acknowledged this and made your creed public can you then put into place a system that connects your church’s confession to Scripture and to church’s government in a way that gives your church, her leadership, and her people a way of making sure that the confession stays subordinate to Scripture in a transparent, orderly, and public way. Ironically, it is not the confessionalists but the “no creed but the Bible” people who exalt their creeds above Scripture” (155).
Confessional Protestantism focuses itself on the Gospel and the Word of God and follows in the footsteps of the Reformers and their successors. Confessional Protestantism is Christianity as Paul would have understood it: the church, and only the church, is the divine institution, existing by the command and will of God, for the preservation and proclamation of the faith. It also meets both of those perceived lacunae in evangelicalism; it provides historical roots and seriously theology.
The Creedal Imperative is an important book that will help those who wish to follow Jesus, and to be faithful, biblical Christians to understand the importance of creeds. To take the Bible seriously means that creeds and confessions, far from being intrusions into the Christian life are actually imperatives for the church. This would be a good book for seminary students, and Bible college students, as well as office bearers in the Church to read to understand the important place creeds have had in the history of the Church and their needed place today in the life of the Church.
Title: The Creedal Imperative Author: Carl Trueman
Publisher: Crossway (2012)
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the Crossway book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.” -
I cannot say enough good things about this book. I could not put it down except for to pick up my 1689. Truman does concentrate more on creeds then confessions but that is why the emphasis is on the first few centuries. His thesis is that the creeds and confessions are still relevant now more than ever
-
Made the point that all churches (and people, really) live by creeds, even if not explicit, so we should just call it what it is and make them explicit. In some capacities I agree and can see his point, but Trueman undermined himself so quickly by alienating non-academic audiences. Major ivory tower vibes for me.
-
This book puts me in an awkward place: I grew up without creeds and I'm married to a pastor of a church that doesn't use creeds (at least not formal, historical creeds!) but I'm growing convinced that creeds offer something to the worship experience that is missing. Trueman's argument--that all churches have creeds and those that eschew formal creeds do so less because they are promoting scripture and more because they are unwittingly upholding the ethos of the current age--is convincing, as all of his books are. This book's title may sound as dry as a textbook but it has much of Trueman's characteristic wit and charm, especially in the first chapter.
I read this out of personal interest (and because, let's be honest, I'm a bit of a Carl Trueman fangirl), so I found the later chapters on the history of the creeds to be somewhat of a slog. I had no real interest or academic purpose for those sections. But I still think the first chapter makes this book well worth reading because Trueman explains how our contemporary rejection of authority, including the authority of language, coupled with our appetite for consumption that prefers the new and idolizes the young, predisposes believers to reject creeds without thinking about their glorious history and purpose. The later chapter on the uses of creeds in worship was also enlightening for a girl raised by ex-Catholic parents who saw little value in monotone repetitions of creedal statements.
I am reminded of Chesterton's exhortation not to destroy man-made institutions you haven't first understood the purpose for: "Don't tear down a fence unless you know why it was built." Creeds do indeed operate as a fence, one I've easily dismissed, but whose purpose I'm beginning to comprehend. It's a baby step away from the Evangelicalism I've participated in all my life. No church is doing it all correctly here on Earth so I'm glad to reach back into history to learn from the best parts of another tradition. -
The first chapter alone is worth the price of the book...X2.
Trueman proves what the title implies: the necessity of creeds/confessions in the life of the church. Trueman does not set out to persuade the reader to adopt his confession, the Westminster Confession of Faith (though, he gives somewhat of an effort by implication), but there's no doubt that makes a strong case for the adoption of a historic confession as opposed to a modern statement of faith.
One qualm: although Trueman never says anything negative about Baptists, he does say in regards to the London Baptist Confession of 1689: "I mention [it], not because it makes a major contribution to confessional theology but because it is proof positive that Baptists have a confessional heritage." Here, Trueman should know better. The 1689 Confession details the active and passive obedience of Christ, which is an improvement upon its absence in the WCF; the 1689 details the pactum salutis, in distinction of other reformed confessions. And the covenant theology of the 1689 and the Particular Baptists who held to it clearly anticipated the covenant theology of Meredith Kline, Michael Horton, and other later Reformed theologians who hold to the doctrine of republication (in some sense). So to say that it doesn't make a major contribution is just ignorance or unrealistic concerning the facts.
Nevertheless, this is one of the best books I've read in a while --and it concerns a very important subject. I highly recommend it. -
Great book, opens up the idea of creeds and confessions to those of us that grew up in a "no creeds but the Bible" universe. The author shows just how useful standing on the shoulders of past learned brothers and leaders in concisely expressing foundational and fundamental theological ideas can be. If you are like I was, and think that there is no need for creeds, please try and summarize your beliefs and convictions concisely. What I found was I either fell back on words or phrases that I heard stated by someone when I was growing up, or struggled to be concise and thorough. Perhaps you would say I believe verses x, y and z, I don't need a creed or confession, then you still just essentially made a creed or confession and left out probably something you might later find useful or necessary.
-
I quite enjoyed this book. My background is not from a church that is confessional and does not use Creedal statements in their liturgy. I found this book to be a compelling look at the necessity for a reliance and favoring of creedal statements for doctrinal unity. The phrase “no creed by the Bible” may be catchy. But living that out can lead to the person having a hermeneutic that is hidden and dark to scrum it’s of other believers. Where as a creed has been meticulously formulated, criticized, and then accepted by ecumenical believers for centuries. This is certainly a more firm foundation for biblical understanding than reliance on individual interpretation. We can hold the value of creeds without saying that the Bible does not have ultimate authority. It’s a both and (Bible authority and Creedal understanding) not an either or.
-
I will be re-reading and recommending this treatise on the need for historical creedal, confessional Christianity as a reference and an encouragement. Trueman helps the modern churchman to see that every church has a creed or confession that guides her doctrinal understandings and polity. He deals with culture's modern objections to these adherences, and makes a compelling case for a biblical imperative. His polemic goes on to the use of historic creeds and confessions having the benefit of being pedagogical, doxological and publicly rooted in a history of the salient doctrines developed and defended for centuries. Highly highly recommended!
