Post #3 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - The Authority of the Nicene Creed And Should The Southern Baptist Convention Add It To The Baptist Faith And Message 2000

Introduction:

    We so far have introduced broadly the nature of doctrinal statements, confessions, and creeds in post #1, with the laying out of the full text of the Nicene Creed here  Growing Christian Resources: Post #1 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - What Are Creeds, Why They're Important, And Introducing the Nicene Creed. We also noted how the inspired creeds of the Bible compare to their non-inspired counterparts like the Nicene Creed here:Growing Christian Resources: Post #2 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - Are Creeds Such As The Nicene Creed Biblical To Use And Biblical In Content?. 

    I want us to spend time today exploring whether or not such Creeds ought to have a place in 21st century church life, as well as understand what authority, if any, they have when compared to the Bible. 

The place of confessions, doctrinal statements, and creeds in the Southern Baptist Convention as an illustration for how to understand the role of the Nicene Creed in Christianity today. 

   Perhaps the easiest place to begin is in my own denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, for two reasons. Number one, the SBC is celebrating a milestone of its own with regards to the 100th anniversary of the Baptist Faith and Message. Then secondly, a proposal at the 2024 SBC convention to add the Nicene Creed to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. We will take each of these in their turn.

The 100th Anniversary of the Baptist Faith and Message and it illustrating why Creeds and Confessions are important.

    The "BFM", as it is called, emerged as the doctrinal consensus of the SBC back in 1925. Since then, Southern Baptists have ratified two additional versions of the "BFM", one in 1963 and the current doctrinal statement - the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Even though a doctrinal statement is different from a creed in function and format, the principle I'm discussing now still applies, namely the relevance of doctrinal expressions and creeds outside the Bible. 

How The SBC Attempted To Not Have An Official Doctrinal Statement Or Creed.

    Anyone who studies the history of Baptist life will find that the SBC saw the need to articulate what it believed and why in the face of mounting cultural challenges and pressures. When the SBC was formed in 1845, there was no push to produce a commonly agreed upon doctrinal statement. Charles Jones wrote an article on February 24, 2025 for Baptist Press on the 100th anniversary of the Baptist Faith and Message here BF&M 100, part 1: Defining and defending the faith | Baptist Press.  In that article, Jones summarized the early days of the SBC towards creeds and confessions:

"There were various Baptist confessions of faith dating back generations, but when the SBC organized in 1845, it did not adopt a confession, saying: 'We have constructed for our basis no new creed; acting in this matter upon a Baptist aversion for all creeds but the Bible.'

    It wasn't for lack of other doctrinal statements and confessions for the SBC to choose.1 Certainly other Baptist groups had already employed the use of doctrinal confessions. 

    Why did the SBC choose to depart from what otherwise was a common practice of Baptists? Despite these examples, the SBC desired to practice a "non-creedal" form of church life, since it prioritized what it called "soul competency". Soul competency is the view that every Christian is free to believe what he or she wants according to the Bible, unencumbered by outside requirements to creeds or confessions.2 

The SBC saw the need to have in writing what it believed.

    By 1925, the then eighty-year old SBC found itself in the midst of the mounting culture wars and threats of theological liberalism, the battle between creation and evolution, and the need to express theologically where it stood on sound doctrine. 

    In 1963, the Baptist Faith and Message was updated, to try to keep up with changing cultural demands. It was as a result of the battles over the inerrancy of Scripture in the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's that the SBC ratified their revision of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 to reinforce its commitment to Biblical inerrancy. 

The recent effort to add the Nicene Creed to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, a second illustration of understanding the role of the Nicene Creed in modern church life.

   The Creed of Nicaea was agreed upon in 325 A.D. to combat the heresy of Arius who denied the deity of Christ. As attention turned more to addressing attacks upon the deity and personality of the Holy Spirit, a more robust statement about Him was added to fine-tune what came to be known as the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed" (or more simply "The Nicene Creed) in 381 A.D. at the Council of Constantinople. It is this version of the Creed that is most familiar to many today.

    As we saw already, the SBC learned that it is next to impossible to conduct denominational life without a confession of faith. Many Baptists in the SBC today do not mind calling themselves "confessional Baptists". However, to address oneself as a "creedal Baptist" makes some nervous, while others are raising the cry to tighten the circles more tightly on areas of sound doctrine, as was done a century ago.

    In the last few years, a growing minority in the Southern Baptist Convention have pushed to make the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (or "Nicene Creed", as we shall call it from here forward) added to the Baptist Faith and Message.3 

    At the 2024 SBC Convention in Indianapolis, IN, the Messengers or those in attendance representing their respective individual SBC churches, voted to send consideration of the proposal to the Executive Board of the SBC for review and formal re-introduction at the forthcoming SBC convention in Dallas in June of 2025.

Why some felt we ought not have the Nicene Creed in our churches.

    There were vocal critics of the proposal. Now let me say from the onset, when viewing the Creed from their perspective, one can understand the concern. Dr. David Allen, Dean of the Adrian Rogers Center For  Preaching at Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, noted his reservations on the language of the creed. It was then that Allen made is statement here Southern Baptists that claim 'no creed but the Bible,' take no action to add the Nicene Creed to their statement of faith:

"Allen suggested that Southern Baptists need time to reflect and evaluate their doctrinal statement before making any changes such as adding the Nicene Creed."

    With that reservation about the Nicene Creed noted, would adoption of the Creed as an extra article in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 undermine the autonomy of local churches? If our brief history lesson about the Baptist Faith and Message itself proved anything, clarifying what we believe about God, salvation, believer's baptism, the church, and the Lord's return can only help, not hinder the mission of each local church.

Reflecting on my own experience of reciting the Apostle's Creed in a church service, and how it illustrates the benefit of occasional use of the Nicene Creed as part of church life.

    Before my wife and I got married nearly thirty years ago, I had begun attending the church where she and her family were members. I came from a church background where drums were more central to church worship, guitars were played, and where innovation was encouraged. The church service I attended with my then to-be wife was a far cry from whence I'd come. The Pastor stood up, said an opening prayer, and then on that day the congregation recited the Apostle's Creed. 

    I was at first skeptical. I was taught to avoid church "formality", since such traditions could stifle the Holy Spirit's moving in a service. Then the next Sunday they did it again. The Pastor had decided to have the congregation to this for a period of time, since he was trying to introduce them to it. 

    As I came to memorize those words of that creed, I found my mind and heart more focused on the Lord. If for anything, realizing that the Christian faith wasn't only a "me and Jesus thing" but "The faith once and for all delivered to the saints" (1 Corinthians 11:23; 15:1-4) caused me to focus less on my "felt needs" and more upon paying heed to God's Word and Christ Himself.  

    Kevin DeYoung in a recent book "The Nicene Creed" here The Nicene Creed: What You Need to Know about the Most Important Creed Ever Written (Foundational Tools for Our Faith): DeYoung, Kevin: 9781433559754: Amazon.com: Books, notes helpfully about creeds and confessions:

"We can think of creeds as statements about the God in whom we believe, while confessions are statements-usually longer and more comprehensive-about what we believe."

    If a denomination or church has opportunity to possibly clarify even further where it stands theologically by appending a time-tested Biblically-sound creed to its Baptist Confession, my thoughts are it ought to be done. 

    Creeds and confessions are secondary in importance compared to the Bible. As a pastor and Christian that confesses "sola Scriptura", I still preach that the Bible alone holds the conscience captive, and it alone is used by the Holy Spirit to change the human heart, whether for conversion or Christian growth. With that said, confessions, and their older cousins, creeds, serve the church as summaries of the key doctrines of Scripture. Moreover, how many times in our evangelism practices have churches used tools like "The Romans Road" or "Evangelism Explosion"? 

    Although we cannot make anyone believe what the Nicene Creed teaches, nevertheless, anyone who is truly born again ought to have no problem confessing its contents once instructed about why it was written and the meaning of its words. 

Conclusion:

    As I close out today's post, my hope is the SBC will adopt the Nicene Creed as part of the Baptist Faith and Message at some point in its future. Furthermore, my desire would be to either preach, teach, or give some simple lessons on the Nicene Creed. I would find it refreshing, on occasion, to even see churches invite its members to recite either the Apostle's Creed or Nicene Creed. 

    Such practices require a careful introduction and wise pace of presenting the Creed as part of church life. I'd even say it is good practice to preach through the Creeds, just as I and other SBC pastors have over the years preached through the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. In these times, where the forces of darkness, secularism, and pluralism are aggressively trying to erode the confidence of Bible believing Christians, it is good to take a closer look at a dear old Creed that the Holy Spirit has used in His Providence to bring to mind those inspired truths of His sacred, inerrant, infallible Word - The Bible. In the next post, we will begin our journey through the Nicene Creed as we celebrate its 1700 years of existence. 

Endnotes:

1. There were certainly other doctrinal statements and confessions circulating around Baptist Churches in the 19th century. Some in the North used the 1742 Philadelphia Baptist Confession of Faith here philadelphia confession, based off of the 2nd London Baptist Confession of 1689 here The1689.org | The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. 

    Most other Baptist Churches outside the SBC subscribed to the then new 1833 New Hampshire Confession of Faith, a document that would influence the wording of the eventual 1925 Baptist Faith and Message. The first SBC Seminary, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, had its own doctrinal statement: "Abstract of Principles" here Abstract of Principles - The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, which was required adherence for all its faculty. 

2 As commendable as that strategy sounded, it underestimated how much inside and outside forces can attempt to corrupt any Christian denomination or Church that gets confused on what it believes and practices. At the time, it was believed that soul competency preserved the historic Baptist stance on congregational government and the autonomy of the local church. 

3 Mark Winfield wrote an article for the "Baptist News Global" that summarized the effort at last year's general convention in Indianapolis, IN here Motion will ask SBC to add Nicene Creed to Baptist Faith and Message – Baptist News Global. Although the effort did not go through, it still highlights what we're discussing in this post about the place and role of creeds in Christianity. Winfield wrote: 

"On May 29, four Southern Baptists announced their intent to call for a change in Southern Baptist identity."  

Winfield continued:

"They proposed to add the Nicene Creed to the Baptist Faith and Message, the SBC’s doctrinal statement, “for the sake of doctrinal clarity and increased unity."

Winfield then enumerated reasons why the Nicene Creed proposal was set forth at last year's convention:

1). "The Nicene Creed authoritatively articulates the primary doctrines of the Christian faith from the Christian Scriptures.”

2). “For nearly two millennia Christians have universally used the Creed for both teaching and worship.”

3). “The Creed is a robust and indisputable summary of orthodox Christian belief in the two most central and indispensable dogmas of the universal Christian faith: God the Trinity and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Post #2 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - Are Creeds Such As The Nicene Creed Biblical To Use And Biblical In Content?

 

Introduction:

    In my last post I began a series of posts on the Nicene Creed here Growing Christian Resources: Post #1 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - What Are Creeds, Why They're Important, And Introducing the Nicene Creed.. My reason for doing this is because on June 19, 2025, Christians will celebrate the Creed's 1700th anniversary. I briefly defined what creeds were, offered a little bit of Biblical justification for them, noted what the Nicene Creed itself was, and then ended with the full text of the version of the creed from 325 A.D.

    In this post we will spend time laying out further evidence from the Bible for the place of creeds in Biblical faith. In the next post I'll deal with how to understand their place and authority (if any) in the life of the Christian and the local church. These considerations are important to set forth, since the goal of these posts is to introduce the Nicene Creed and to offer exposition on each of its statements. 

    Many who have never heard of the Nicene creed or who have never experienced it (or its related creed "The Apostle's Creed) recited in the church are right to ask whether such a practice is right, especially in churches that affirm sola scriptura or the Bible's unique authority to establish faith, practice, and one's understanding of God. Sola Scripture (Scripture alone) does not exclude secondary documents such as Creeds, Confessions, Church Covenants, Bylaws, and others that can aid in summarizing or explaining theological and practical matters of church life. 

    The other matter of how to understand the place and authority of creeds is a big issue, especially among Baptist people. In my own denomination, The Southern Baptist Convention, a motion was proposed last June to make the Nicene Creed part of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. It was tabled to the Executive Committee (the administrative arm of the convention) and is planned for reconsideration at this year's convention in Dallas, Texas. What will become of it remains to be seen.  

    I'll cover more about that issue in the next post. I recommend the reader to "The Center For Baptist Renewal Website", which represents pretty much my views on the importance of retrieving familiarity and use of Nicene Creed and other older confessions here Who We Are — Center For Baptist Renewal

Are creeds Biblical?

     Creeds or summary statements of the faith are embedded in the fabric of the Divinely revealed pages of God's Word. As such, creeds as found in the text of Scripture are themselves Divinely inspired and thus carry the authority of defining what Christians and church ought to be believe and teach. Creeds in the Bible, as well as their use, can provide a template for what to do with creeds and confessions outside the Bible (i.e. extra-biblical creeds such as the Nicene Creed are non-inspired, and of secondary authority in summarizing essentially what Christians everywhere believe and what anyone professing faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord should believe). 

    To remind readers, a creed is a statement of belief - a "credo" (from the Latin credo meaning "I believe"). Creeds function as summaries of the essential truths of Biblical faith once for all delivered to the saints, whether Old Testament or New.  

Sample creeds or summary statements of faith in the Old Testament, and how well the Nicene Creed Aligns With Such Statements

    In the Old Testament, the central creed of Old Testament Israel was Deuteronomy 6:4-5, called "The Great Shema" because of the Hebrew word in its opening sentence (Shema or "hear"):

“Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! 5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.

    Here we see affirmation of monotheism or the oneness of God's being. He is One. We also see included two of the leading Divine names for this God. He is "God" or "Elohim", the same Elohim who created the Heavens and the earth, who said "let us make man in our image", and who alone is God (see Genesis 1:1-2; 1:26-27). 

    Plurality of identity and oneness of being is embedded in that Divine name of "Elohim", since the "im" suffix in Hebrew is plural, whilst the name is often the subject of singular verbs, which is why it is often translated "God". Then we see "LORD" or Yahweh, the covenant name of this God. His self-existence as "I am who I am" means He is the living God who keeps His covenant promises for His people, who has Divine authority to raise the dead, create something out of nothing, and exercise Sovereignty over all things. 

    Elsewhere in the Old Testament we see such "creedal statements" or "faith summaries" given by God to capture the essence of what it means to follow Him. In Exodus 34:6-7, the Lord tells Moses: 

"The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth."

    Such a summary statement highlights the moral character of Yahweh, and is found in similar form in Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 4:31; Nehemiah 9:17; Psalms 86:15; 103:8; 108:4; 145:8 and Joel 2:13. 

    One more example of an Old Testament summary statement of faith or "creed" is when God says "I am the Lord, and there is no other". Variations on this summary statement are found particular in Isaiah 41:4,8; 43:10-11; 44:5,6,21, as well as Hosea 13:4. Such summary statements find their way into the New Testament as Jesus and the Apostles summarized what it meant to trust and follow the Lord God of Israel.

    When we look at the opening of the Nicene Creed, it avows monotheism, the Personality of God as to the First Person of the Trinity - God the Father. All that was said above is summarized beautifully in the opening of this creed...

"We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible."

Sample creeds or summary statements of faith in the New Testament

    Jesus for example cites "The Great Shema" or Deuteronomy 6:4-5 in His famous greatest commandment saying in Matthew 22:37-39 and Mark 12:30-31. It is in those places where Jesus urges his audience to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength". He does double allusion, not only to Deuteronomy 6:4-5 but to Leviticus 19:8, where He draws the second most important summary command: "you shall love your neighbor as yourself". The Apostle Paul takes his cue from Jesus in repeating Leviticus 19:8 in Galatians 5:14. 

    When we enter the Book of Acts, we find the early Church spreading Northward and Westward from its epicenter in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Christ had already ascended. The Holy Spirit's coming at Pentecost was the premier sign of Christ's promise of He and the Father's sending of the Spirit (John 14:26-27; John 15:26-27). 

    Furthermore, the Apostle Peter testified that the arrival of the Holy Spirit gave evidence for the deity of Christ and His glorification in Heaven. 

    The Apostle Peter asserted a short, terse truth that functioned as a creed: "He is Lord of all" (Acts 10:37; also Acts 2:36). This short creed "Jesus is Lord" became so foundational that the Apostle Paul combined it with the central creed of Old Testament Judaism, The Great Shema, in 1 Corinthians 8:6 "yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him."

    As you look at the next part of the Nicene Creed, the equality and deity of the Son in conjunction with the Father is affirmed,

"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made; of the same essence as the Father. Through him all things were made."

    As Christianity spread, it soon found itself asserting the twin truths of Monotheism on the one hand and the Deity or Lordship of Christ on the other. We find creedal statements throughout Paul's letters that were likely hymns sung by the early Christians. 

    The Holy Spirit saw fit to include these hymns or creeds. 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 includes an ancient creed that affirms Christ's death, burial, resurrection, and post-resurrection appearances. Colossians 1:16-20 and Ephesians 5:22-26 affirm the deity of Christ and His Sovereign authority over creation and the Church. 

    In 1 Timothy 3:16, Paul cites a creed that states the full equality of Christ as God, as well as His incarnation and ascension into Heaven. As to Christ's incarnation and true manhood, the Apostle John warned that to deny such truths was a sign that such a person was not truly born-again (see 2 John 1:7-9). 

    Again, the Nicene Creed summarizes these truths of the incarnation of the Son, the deity of the Spirit, the role of the church, believer's baptism, and the second coming of Christ as laid out in the Scriptures above. 

"For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven; he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and was made human.

He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried. The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures. He ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will never end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life. He proceeds from the Father and the Son, and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified. He spoke through the prophets. 

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church. We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and to life in the world to come. Amen."

Closing thoughts

    In all, well over one dozen passages, stating fundamental truths from the deity and work of the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17); to the importance and meaning of Baptism (Romans 6:5-11); to the Lord's Table (1 Corinthians 11:23-31); to the Lord's second coming (Philippians 3:20-21; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-16; Revelation 19); to the doctrine of the Trinity (2 Corinthians 13:14; Ephesians 2:18) are found. 

    Creeds and their use in the Bible is evident. To say that the use of creeds, confessions, and doctrinal statements is Biblical is to affirm the full testimony of Scripture, of which the above is but a sampling. In the next post, we will conclude our introductory postings about the Nicene Creed by answering whether or not Creeds should have a place in the local church, as well as what authority, if any, ought they carry in local Baptist Churches, or any church for that matter. 

    

    

Post #1 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - What Are Creeds, Why They're Important, And Introducing the Nicene Creed.

 

Introduction: Doctrinal statements, confessions, and creeds. What are they?

    When we look at the history of the Christian church, we discover that almost every generation of Christians had doctrinal statements, confessions, and creeds. Doctrinal statements are the latest development in how Christians express their faith. A doctrinal statement serves as a defensive statement of a church or Christian institution in expressing its distinctive beliefs about the teachings of Scripture. 

    Confessions are the next oldest form of doctrinal expression.1 We see confessions emerge during the 16th century Protestant Reformation as Roman Catholics and Protestants attempt to distinguish themselves from one another and lay out what is deemed the crucial elements of the Christian faith. 

    Creeds are the oldest expression of doctrinal commitment. As I'll explain momentarily, the term creed means "I believe". Creeds came into use during the days of Jesus and the Apostles. The Holy Spirit chose to use those creeds in His production of the Divinely inspired books of the New Testament. 2

Seeing creedal statements in the New Testament.

    For example, when Peter preached to a group of Gentile believers in Acts 10:36, he expressed a very short creed: "Jesus is Lord". Paul expressed an early Christian creed in the opening of his argument for the resurrection of Jesus from the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:2-4, affirming that: 

"Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, He was buried, and He was raised from the dead according to the Scriptures". 

    Paul then included various sightings of the post-resurrected Christ in the remainder of the passage.3 Once the New Testament authors incorporated those creeds, they became part of the Divinely inspired text of the New Testament. Creeds formed after the New Testament are not Divinely inspired, and must be viewed as important witnesses and summaries of Scripture compared to their Divinely inspired counterparts in the Bible, the Word of God. 

What functions do creeds have? Why are they necessary for Christians today?

    The word "creed" derives from the Latin verb "credo" and means "I believe". In two of the most well-known creeds, the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed, the Latin versions of the each of these begin with that Latin verb "credo". Creeds served three purposes.

A. Creeds are tools for making disciples. 

    First, a creed was what a new believer confessed before the church prior to their baptism. To express a creed was to affirm "this is what I believe". We could say that creeds were originally the first tool used in making disciples.

B. Creeds summarize the essentials of the Christian faith. 

   Secondly, Creeds functioned to articulate the church's faith and summary of the teachings of Scripture in the face of heresy and controversy.

C. Creeds are used in the worship of God's people 

   Lastly, and of most importance, Creeds served as part of the worship services in the early church. We see this especially in the use of the Apostle's Creed and its much bigger cousin, the Nicene Creed.  

The necessity of Creeds for Christianity. 

   As we saw earlier, creeds became part of the inspired New Testament record. As subsequent generations of Christians spread the Gospel, made disciples, and defended the faith, they no doubt affirmed the foundation of God's Word as the final standard for faith and practice. With that affirmation, early Christians did not exclude the need for statements of faith like Creeds to clarify what the Scriptures taught and what they believed. 4

What is the Nicene Creed?

    June 19, 2025 will mark 1,700 years since the early church convened the historic "Council of Nicaea" in ancient Bithynia (modern day Turkey). The point of the council and its consequent creed was to deal with the error of Arius, a bishop at that time, who denied the deity of Christ, the personality of the Holy Spirit, and asserted that the Father alone was truly God in the fullest sense.5 

    As the dust settled after that extraordinary gathering of 325 bishops, Arius was deemed a heretic. It seemed the doctrine of Christ's deity was safeguarded. However, it didn't take long until Arius' teaching began to seep back into the empire. In 381 A.D. a second major council (also called an "ecumenical council") was convened in Constantinople to expand on the original Nicene Creed's statements. This council, known as the "Council of Constantinople", expanded particularly on the Nicene Creed's affirmation of the Holy Spirit to fight a heretical group called the "Spirit-fighters" or "Pneumatomachians". These people denied the deity of Christ and aligned closely with the lingering teachings of Arius. Consequently, the Council of Constantinople's outcome and additions to the Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. led to what is called today the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed". It is this Creed that is confessed the world-over in vast stretches of Christian churches. 

    As I mentioned already, the term "creed" derives from the Latin "credo" meaning "I believe". It is the first word in this historic creed. Although not the only creed of course (there is the historic Apostle's Creed, for example), the Nicene Creed is recited and affirmed nearly every Sunday throughout vast stretches of the Christian church. 325 bishops convened on June 19, 325 A.D. to debate the heretical notions of Arius, to hear the learned arguments of Athanasius, and to dispute among themselves what ought be the declaration of the Christian faith for that era. 

    Little did they imagine that this Creed (and its subsequent fuller version, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381) would find generations of Christian reciting it and using it even to this day. I close out this post with the full Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. I plan to offer further teaching about this creed in future posts in commemoration of this extraordinary 2,500th anniversary of it. 

Conclusion: The Nicene Creed of 325 A.D.

    I reproduce below the original Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. as it is found in Phillip Schaff's "The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church" here Philip Schaff: NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth.  

Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man.  He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven.  And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead.  

And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost.  And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion—all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes (or curses) them."

More next post

---------

Endnotes:

1. When we look at confessions of faith (such as the Lutheran Augsburg Confession, or Westminster Confession of Faith, or 2nd London Baptist Confession of 1689, or the Baptist Faith and Message 2000), they serve not to defend, but to proclaim and go on the offense concerning what a particular denomination or Christian movement holds. 

2. When the New Testament canon closed, creeds outside Scripture were formulated for use by new converts getting baptized. As heresies and persecution arose, the early Christians saw creeds as shorthand for summarizing the essentials of Christianity, as well as keeping in mind what the Bible taught. 

3. New Testament scholars today agree that Paul utilized a creed that is traceable to within five years of the events of the empty tomb, making it the oldest evidence we have of Christ's resurrection, pre-dating the Gospels by twenty-five years.

4. The early Christians quickly saw it wasn't enough to say "I believe in Jesus", since there were other heretics (such as Marcion of the second century) and movements (like Gnosticism of the second century) who also claimed belief in Jesus and used the New Testament to back up their aberrant views. 

    Creeds became necessary to affirm what each Bible believing church taught and to clarify what they did not teach (for instance, denying Marcion's claim that the God of the Old Testament was evil for creating the material world, and that Jesus was a good lesser deity; or Gnosticism, which denied the true humanity of Christ while affirming him to be a deity among other deities). 

    As I will argue for in the next two posts, Creeds such as The Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed, and other major Creeds are important to know, retain, and if need be, recite in the life of the church. Why? The proliferation of the errors of Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons on the Person of Christ requires us to state clearly why they don't have a Biblical view of the Savior, and why a tried and tested summary of Scripture's teaching on Jesus Christ yields that He is truly God and truly man, and that He, along with the Father and Holy Spirit are one God in Trinity and Trinity in unity. You have to have the right Jesus if you're going to be right with God. 

5. This council came together after a heated seven-year debate between the older Arius, his superior Alexander (Bishop of Alexandria Egypt), and the chief defender of Christ's deity and the doctrine of the Trinity, Athanasius (who served as a Deacon under Alexander but then later became himself Bishop of Alexandria). I won't get into the details today about what led up to this council. We can note one other important fact tied to the Nicene Creed.

Series: You Can Trust Your Bible: P5 Reaffirming Moses Wrote The Pentateuch And Showing The Weaknesses Of The Documentary Hypothesis

Introduction:

    The last four posts have dealt with answering the question about who wrote the first five books of the Bible. I laid out in part one an outline of the historic Christian and Biblical position on Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch here Growing Christian Resources: Series: You Can Trust Your Bible - P1 Why Affirming Mosaic Authorship Of The Pentateuch Is Important. Then in posts two Growing Christian Resources: Series: You Can Trust Your Bible - P2 The Biblical Data And Jesus' View On Mosaic Authorship Of The Pentateuch, three Growing Christian Resources: Series: You Can Trust Your Bible: P3 Those Who Oppose Mosaic Authorship - Introducing Higher Criticism, and four Growing Christian Resources: Series: You Can Trust Your Bible: P4 Those Who Oppose Mosaic Authorship - Introducing The J.E.D.P Theory (a.k.a "Documentary Hypothesis") and its fruits I introduced readers to the opposing viewpoint, the documentary hypothesis or J.E.D.P theory, which asserts that multiple editors compiled the Pentateuch over a period of centuries from the time of King David until after the Babylonian exile. For these theorists, the Pentateuch came about by long evolutionary development, rather than as a by-product of Divine revelation through one author (Moses). 

    In today's post I want to round out our study of the Pentateuch's authorship and Divine inspiration by showing why it fits a much earlier time period, how we can know that Moses historically existed, and why we can trust that God inspired Genesis through Deuteronomy. 

Knowing that Moses existed.

    We can know that Moses lived, when he lived, and that he wrote the first five books of the Bible. As to the first affirmation that Moses actually lived, I refer you back to what I said in the first post of this series. We saw that other Old Testament authors treated Moses as a real person. Jesus in over thirty places in the Gospels (I only gave you a handful of those references earlier) treats Moses as a historical figure. For example in John 5:46, we read these words from Jesus: "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me."

    In addition, a famous Jewish historian who lived during the time of the Apostles in the first century by the name of Flavius Josephus wrote a huge history of the Jews called “The Antiquities of the Jews”. In books one to four of this twenty volume work, this competent Jewish historian treats Moses as a historical figure who wrote the first five books. In the opening paragraph of his "Antiquities of the Jews", Josephus wrote:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. But when the earth did not come into sight, but was covered with thick darkness, and a wind moved upon its surface, God commanded that there should be light: and when that was made, he considered the whole mass, and separated the light and the darkness; and the name he gave to one was Night, and the other he called Day: and he named the beginning of light, and the time of rest, The Evening and The Morning, and this was indeed the first day. But Moses said it was one day; the cause of which I am able to give even now; but because I have promised to give such reasons for all things in a treatise by itself, I shall put off its exposition till that time. "

How we date events in the Bible and how we know when Moses lived.

     What can we say of when Moses’ lived? Let’s understand that we can establish Biblical events and when they happened. 

A. Start with Solomon's Temple.

    Archaeology and Old Testament scholarship dates Solomon’s reign to had begun at 970 b.c. In 1 Kings 6:1 we are told when Solomon built the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem: 

“Now it came about in the four hundred and eightieth year after the sons of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord.”  

    This gives us a date of 966 b.c. (keep in mind that dates before the time of Christ get less as you move forward in time and increase as you move to the past). 

B. Subtract 480 years from the date of Solomon's Temple.  

    If you subtract 480 years, you arrive at the date of the Exodus (with Moses) at 1446 b.c. 

C. Double Checking with the Book of Judges. 

    We can even double-check this time period by noting a time stamp of 300 years given by Jephthah in Judges 11:26, where he alluded to the battle Moses had with King Sihon in Numbers 21. Judges 11:25-26 reads: 

'Now are you any better than Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab? Did he ever strive with Israel, or did he ever fight against them? 26 While Israel lived in Heshbon and its villages, and in Aroer and its villages, and in all the cities that are on the banks of the Arnon, three hundred years, why did you not recover them within that time?" 

The Book of Judges contains time stamps of how long each Judge presided over Israel. By accounting for overlaps in each Judge's leadership, we can arrive at an accurate date for Jephthah's remarks (close to 1100 b.c.) By going backward 300 years, we arrive at the battle Moses had in the Book of Numbers to be 1400 b.c.

D. Noting the timeframe in the Book of Judges.  

    As observed, the time frame of Jephthah’s words in Judges 11:26 would be 1100 b.c., bringing us to roughly 1400 b.c. or near the end of Moses’ time of leadership in Israel what is referenced in Numbers 21. Thus, we have Moses’ leadership of Israel dated from 1446-1406 b.c. (since he led them for forty years, Deuteronomy 29:5). Multiple lines of historic reference throughout the Hebrew Bible, coupled with definitive dates established by historians and archaeologists enable dating of Biblical events to be possible.

E. Establishing when Moses was born and died. 

    Moses lived for 120 years, which means, For convenience sake, we can assign Moses’ birth at roughly 1520 b.c. So, we have so far shown that Moses lived, and when he died (1520 b.c. to 1400 b.c.). 

Showing once more that Moses wrote the Pentateuch

A. The Historical Books of the Bible

show that Moses wrote the

Pentateuch

Since we have a time period for when Moses’ lived (1520-1400 b.c.), we can now show why Genesis-Deuteronomy was written in that time, and thus by Moses. Let’s show that Moses wrote the first five books.

The J.E.D.P Documentary Hypothesis of Wellhausen and company claims the first five books were written between 950-550 b.c., with Deuteronomy written during the reign of King Josiah, whom we say earlier reigned in Jerusalem from 640-609 b.c. 

    In the first post of this series we noted about Josiah’s grandfather, Manasseh, in the first post. He reigned over 50 years from 687-643 b.c. According to the summary of his reign in 2 Kings 21:8, which reads in part: “The Book of the Law, which my servant Moses commanded”, you have the existence of the first five books mentioned fifty years before King Josiah came on the scene. 

    The J.E.D.P theorists do not deny the historicity of King Josiah, nor the other kings for that matter, so we can then pursue earlier proofs of the existence of the first five books. Earlier when I cited 1 Kings 6:1 and its specific dating of the Exodus being 480 years earlier than Solomon’s temple, we had proof that the first five books had to have existed at least in his time, since he got the Exodus account from them (Exodus 12-15 to be exact)! 

    That brings us to at least 970 b.c., predating King Josiah’s time by some 300 years and already predating the oldest possible date for the writing of the Pentateuch by the J.E.D.P theorists (remember, they claim 950-900 b.c.) But there is more evidence against the J.E.D.P to note.

Studies of other cultures living in

and around the Euphrates River

(Ancient Near East) provide evidence

for the antiquity of the Pentateuch and

Moses' as a historical person.

When you study the outline of Deuteronomy or God’s Covenant with the Israelites in Exodus 20-23, the Covenant God made, as well as Moses form of writing in Deuteronomy follows a common form of covenant making that was active in the Middle East no later than 1200 b.c. This form, called “A Suzerain-Vassal” Treaty, was made popular from civilizations that existed in Mesopotamia, Assyria, and others. Since we have established Moses' days as being 1520-1400 b.c, the structure of Deuteronomy fitting the form of Ancient Near Eastern treaties would fit it well within the date of 1406 b.c. as dated by conservative Biblical scholarship.

Studies in Hebrew and its sister languages show the Pentateuch being written well before the alleged dates of the Documentary hypothesis, and hence Moses as the author. 

    In addition to comparative studies of Ancient Near Eastern Documents helping make the case for Mosaic authorship and the antiquity of the Pentateuch, we find aid in the Hebrew text of Genesis through Deuteronomy itself. In the Hebrew text of Genesis especially, you see different spellings for the pronouns “He” and “She” than you would throughout the Hebrew Bible. I had a Hebrew Professor, an expert in the sister languages of the Hebrew (known as Semitic languages) who showed me a particular parallel for those spellings in languages like Ugaritic and ancient Babylonian, languages which were spoken in and around 1500 b.c. We established Moses would had been born around 1520 b.c. The grammatical oddities of those pronouns help us date Genesis easily to after 1400 b.c.

Archaeology supports the accuracy

and antiquity of the Pentateuch

As Moses wrote what he wrote in Genesis about the Patriarchs like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, we find that he was very accurate in what he recorded. Moses received from records of those Patriarchs in the times they lived. If I had more time, I could tell you of archaeological discoveries that confirm details, such as the city where Abraham would had lived for a time (“Haran”, discovered in the “Mari-Tablets”, which were found in 1933 near ancient Assyria or modern day Iraq, dated to 2081 b.c., the time of Abraham, confirming Genesis 11:31-12:5). 

    Moses’ extensive knowledge of Egyptian culture proves further that the author of Genesis thru Deuteronomy had an Egyptian background (the ten plagues, for instance, are against certain deities worshipped by the Egyptians, which we can date to the time-period of Moses and the Exodus.) On and on and on the evidence goes. 

Conclusion: 

    Whether archaeology, analyzing the Hebrew text of Genesis thru Deuteronomy, or examining secular history outside the Biblical text, we consistently land at a dating of these books between 1500-1400 b.c. We know when they were written, which in turn means Moses did write these books. Jesus is proven right. The Old Testament is right. You can trust the Bible you hold in your hands, that is on your device, and that your pastor preaches every Sunday.     

Series: You Can Trust Your Bible: P4 Those Who Oppose Mosaic Authorship - Introducing The J.E.D.P Theory (a.k.a "Documentary Hypothesis") and its fruits

 

Introduction:

    In our last post I introduced readers to the opposing school of thought to the Divine inspiration of the Pentateuch and its Mosaic authorship. I want to continue from where we left off in that post to deal with the outcome of the Higher Critical view - the so-called "J.E.D.P" theory or Documentary Hypothesis.

Why was the 18th century ripe for the emergence of Higher Criticism of the Bible?

     In the 17th and 18th centuries, the so-called "Age of Reason" or "Age of Enlightenment" was underway in France, Germany, and Europe. The long wars between Protestants and Catholics formed the climate of spiritual fatigue, not to mention Western culture's continuing drift toward deism, agnosticism, and in some pockets atheism. 

    Coupled with political instability in Europe and the eroding confidence in the church lent to the emergence of the notion that human reason, rather than revelation, was ultimately authoritative. For instance, in 1651, philosopher Thomas Hobbes exemplified this changing attitude. He wrote a book called "Leviathan", wherein he proposed that religion was a tool of men to control the masses. His use of the term "religion" no longer meant its historical meaning of "devotion to God" as it was changed to "what men believed they believed about God". 

     Higher Criticism initially attempted to still have a Christianity that could survive in a climate no longer friendly to miracles, prophecy, and the evidence for God's Providence and existence. This theological motivation produced what came to be "theological liberalism", championed by such thinkers as Friedrich Schleiermacher at the end of the 1700s. I'll comment in a moment on the fruits produced by this theological movement as it grew from the seeds of Higher Criticism. What did the Higher Critics develop in their views about Genesis through Deuteronomy?

The Higher Critical School's Bringing Forth of The Documentary Hypothesis

In 1878, a German scholar by the name of Julius Wellhausen (we will call him “Wellhausen”) took all of the above critics and brought them together into a proposal, a “hypothesis”, in which he proposed multiple sources sources for the Pentateuch. Below is a typical diagram illustrating Wellhausen's view.

    According to Wellhausen, Moses was out, and multiple editors were now the responsible parties for the Pentateuch or Torah we have today. He idea “The Documentary Hypothesis”, headlined a school of German theological scholarship known as "source criticism". Source criticism, along with its related discipline of "redaction criticism", which proposed multiple editors as being the authors of the Biblical documents, drove the engine behind the Documentary theory. 

To summarize Wellhausen's view:

1. He claimed that there was a “J” editor (because of the name “Jahweh”), who was big on presenting God as a being more human like, adding his parts to the Pentateuch after King David in 950-850 b.c. (that’s 600 years after Moses lived!) 

2. Wellhausen then proposed a second editor, “E”, because, he claimed, that editor used God’s general name “Elohim” when describing God in spiritual terms. Wellhausen claims that this second editor added his piece in 750 b.c. 

3. Then Wellhausen proposed a third editor, “P”, whom he claimed wrote the “Priestly” details we read of in Leviticus to prove the Jewish priesthood during the reign of King Josiah (around 650 b.c). 

4. Then Wellhausen proposed one final part to his theory, editor “D”, whom he claimed wrote the Book of Deuteronomy during the time of Jewish return from the Babylonian exile in 539 b.c. to argue for the Jews right to the promised land. 

    Based off of the names of the editors he postulated, Higher Critical Scholarship would come to call this the "J.E.D.P" theory. It wasn't that Wellhausen invented the Documentary hypothesis, rather he expressed it in a systematic form that combined insights from previous thinkers in the Higher Critical School. Men such as Eichhorn in the 1780s, DeWitt in 1805, Hupfield in 1853, and Graf in 1866 all had their variations of this general view that was conveyed by Wellhausen. 

    As Higher Criticism picked up steam, in 1805, another German critic by the name of William Martin Lebrect DeWitt proposed that the book of Deuteronomy was written during the reign of King Josiah in 640-609 b.c. Other names could be mentioned, however this gives us a working understanding of the development of the growing opposition to Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

    In a lecture on the Documentary Hypothesis at Yale University, Professor Christine Hayes laid out pretty much the narrative I just told above. In her lecture she notes this about the goal of the Documentary Hypothesis:

"The key assumption in the documentary hypothesis is that the sources composing the Pentateuch don't tell us anything of the time or situation of the Israelites or the author(s), but only what they believed."1

    That statement has embedded within it the denial of the possibility of Divine revelation, since the historic Christian position asserts that God has disclosed His will and nature in creation and more fully in the Bible and through the Person of Jesus Christ. 

    The J.E.D.P theory also denies the reality (or the need) of God's existence, the spiritual realm, and the need for salvation by grace alone through faith alone apart from works. If not denying God's existence completely, the view certainly denies the Bible communicating a unified revelation of the living God. What fruits have Higher Criticism, the Documentary Hypothesis, and theological liberalism produced?

How Higher-Criticism, The Documentary Hypothesis, and Theological Liberalism has failed in its promises to advance the cause of the Church

    It was once noted by R.C. Sproul that most forms of Biblical compromise emerge out of an attempt to increase the church's relevance in its evangelistic endeavors. Now please hear me, it is not evangelism that is sinful, since after all the Lord Jesus Christ issued the Great Commission to His Apostles and Church to "go into all the world and make disciples" (Matthew 28:19-20). The local church exists to spread the Gospel and call everyone to whom it goes to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" and "repent of their sins and be saved" (Compare Acts 2:36-37; Acts 16:31; Romans 1:16; Romans 10:9). Instead, if our missionary attempts are not grounded in fidelity to the truth of God's Word, we will find ourselves drifting in our message, and missions will die.2 

    The long parade of mainline American denominations who have dwindled and ceased their missionary endeavors is a consequence of the corrosive nature of Higher Criticism and its offspring, theological liberalism. 

Take aways for today

     We have introduced the so-called documentary hypothesis and the philosophical underpinnings of its forebear - Higher Criticism. We also summarized the traditional view of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and its presuppositions. Why does this matter? Essentially, questions to ask are these: 

1). Are the first five books of the Bible the by-product of longer, evolutionary, and editorial development by men? 

2). Or are these five books the by-produce of Divine revelation by a Holy God Who through Moses expressed His Covenant commitment to them and plans for the future coming of the Messiah? 

    The answer to this line of questioning is proved important by the fruits we saw of men, churches, institutions, and denominations that adopted Higher Criticism, the Documentary Hypothesis, and the denial of the Divine inspiration of the Pentateuch and the remainder of the Bible. 

    In our next post we will wrap up this study of the authorship of the Pentateuch, noting what archaeology, linguistics, and the text of the Pentateuch itself reveals about the authorship of its contents. We will then draw our conclusions to grasp how you can know whether or not you can trust your Bible.

Endnotes:

1. Professor Hayes explains in her lecture how the alleged editors in the J.E.D.P theory portray varied views of God. She notes how the so-called "J" source sees God anthromorphically, using human body parts to describe Him (as in, Jehovah walking in the garden in Genesis 3). Then in her comments on the Elohistic or "E" source, God or Elohim is portrayed as a remote or non-physical entity. In the "D" or Deuteronomistic source behind the Book of Deuteronomy (per the theory), Professor Hayes notes God is viewed as dwelling in a sanctuary. Then finally, the "P" or priestly source in the professor's lecture presents God as concealed in a cloud of glory or light. The Documentary hypothesis presumes the Bible is a fragmented book, rather than a unified body of Divine revelation.

    So why do thinkers who subscribe to the Documentary theory reach the conclusions they do as seen in the excerpt of the above lecture? Religious studies departments in many secular universities typically approach the Bible as a relic of the past that is not Divinely authoritative, but rather a by-product of the human imagination trying to make sense of the world. By having an awareness of such assumptions will help explain why there is such a vigorous effort to oppose Mosaic authorship and the idea of the Bible being Divinely inspired by God.

2 When you study the history of theological liberalism in the 19th and twentieth centuries, you discover that attempts at relevance at the expense of doctrinal fidelity resulted in the death of missions. Higher Critical theories of Scripture led to the departure of every major theological seminary and school that set out to train Pastors (such as Harvard Divinity School, Princeton Theological Seminary, Yale Divinity School, The University of Chicago, just to name a few). 

    The 19th century liberalism spawned by men like Friedrich Schleiermacher that attempted to align the church with then new theories of origins (Darwinism), age of the Earth (Charles Lyell's "Principles of Geology"), and the skepticism growing out of the 18th century produced churches that eventually ceased in their evangelism. 

    In the 20th century, theological liberalism became the movement known as "Modernism". Henry Emerson Fosdick, a leading figure of Modernism, stated how churches needed to preach their Gospel on basis of "the felt-needs" of their hearers, rather than on exactitude to sound doctrine. The Social Gospel emerged, touting the church's main mission to be that of social relief rather than calling for the conversion of souls. In as much as a local church should have a positive impact on its community, to make that the mission is to depart from the reason for local church - fidelity to sound doctrine, making of disciples, and calling for sinners to be born again in saving faith. 

Series: You Can Trust Your Bible: P3 Those Who Oppose Mosaic Authorship - Introducing Higher Criticism

Note: The above picture is from Johann Reuchlin's Hebrew and Latin Bible, depicting Isaiah 57. 

Introduction:

    In our last two posts we provided an outline and overview of the Biblical and traditional view of Moses having composed the first five books of the Bible. We noted the number of Old Testament authors, Jesus, and the Apostles affirming Moses as the author of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Further, we drew the conclusion that to deny Mosaic authorship would make the remainder of the Old Testament, Jesus, and the Apostles to be mistaken or liars. 
Summarizing the assumptions of the traditional view of Mosaic authorship of Pentateuch
The suppositions underlying Mosaic authorship are as follows:

1. Divine Inspiration of the Bible. 

    God divinely inspired the Pentateuch through a legitimate prophet, Moses.

2. Moses was a prophet who predicted future events.

    Moses wrote a number of prophecies in the Torah or Pentateuch, including the prediction of the cosmic battle between Christ and Satan (Genesis 3:15). The coming worldwide flood via Noah (Genesis 6:1-9). The prediction of Abraham's descendants enslaved in Egypt for four generations (Genesis 15). 

    The coming of a future redeemer, who would arise from the tribe of Judah and who would be Moses-like in His miracles, authority, and teaching (Genesis 49:10; Deuteronomy 18). And the prediction of the future dispersions of the Israelites as a consequence of their breaking of the Mosaic Covenant (Deuteronomy 28-29). All these prophecies came true in history, certifying the Divine inspiration of the Pentateuch.

3. Moses was a historical figure. 
    Moses was a historical figure whom God used to lead the Israelites out of Egypt in the Exodus in the mid-fifteenth century b.c. Moses' knowledge of Egyptian culture, coupled with certain features in the Pentateuch, makes placement of those books in the fifteenth century b.c. far more likely than the current critical view. 
    

The Higher Critical view (which I'll introduce in a moment) makes the Pentateuch a byproduct of several editors or "redactors" stretching from the days after King David (900's b.c.) through the reign of Josiah in Jerusalem (mid-7th century b.c.) to the time after the Jews return from the Babylonian exile (mid-6th century b.c.)

4. The Hebrew Bible, Jesus, and the Apostles affirmed Mosaic Authorship

    One final supposition for the historical view of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and that is the combined witness of the remainder of the Hebrew Bible (Joshua through Malachi), Jesus, and the Apostles is why the church historically championed Mosaic authorship for the first 1700 years of its existence. 

    Additionally, the findings of archaeology have provided evidence that lends far greater weight to the traditional view than the Higher-Critical view that Genesis through Deuteronomy was produced by multiple editors (which we will look at in later postings).

    With the traditional, conservative view of the Pentateuch expressed, we will now turn to the viewpoint (or cluster of positions) that offer an alternative explanation in opposition to Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. 

Those who would rise up to question Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch

    

    For the first 1700 years of Church history (Church history spans from the first century until present, roughly 2,000 years) and all of Jewish history prior agreed with Jesus and the Old Testament authors that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. 
    

    In 1670 a Philosopher, Baruch Spinoza, suggested in his book “Tractatus Theologico-Politicus” that Ezra the Scribe had composed the Pentateuch. Ezra (author of the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and perhaps 1 and 2 Chronicles) lived in the 500-400's b.c. As the proposal goes, Ezra compiled the Pentateuch a 1,000 years after the preported events recorded. One thing that critical views of Mosaic authorship and Divine inspiration of the Pentateuch share is the attempt to make the writing of those books far later than their alleged recorded events. 
     

    Then a French doctor by the name of Jean Astruc (1753) and a German textual critic Johann Eichhorn in 1780-1783 suggested that Genesis could be divided up into different documents, edited by anonymous authors who used different names for God.  When they looked at Genesis 1-2 for instance, they saw the general name for God (“Elohim”, in the Hebrew) in chapter 1, then the Personal name of God (“Jehovah” or “Yahweh” in the Hebrew) in Genesis 2, concluding two different authors had to have written them. 

The dawning of Higher Criticism in Europe

    Thus, as we move from the 17th century into the 18th century, the so-called Higher Critical view is emerging. The reason for it being called "Higher Criticism" is due to it attempting to recover the source or sources of authorship in a given document. The phrase "Higher Criticism" explains what came to be the discipline of discovering the author or authors behind the alleged documents. 

Briefly comparing Higher Criticism to Lower Criticism (a.k.a textual criticism) 

    A parallel and far more legitimate discipline, so-called "Lower-criticism", worked to establish the original wording of a document by comparing existing copies with one another. The church throughout its history has had numerous examples of Bible-believing scholars who studied the existing copies and translations of the Old and New Testaments to establish what were the original words. 

    Such a discipline, also known as "textual criticism", was practiced by earely church fathers like Justin Martyr and Origen (2nd century A.D.), Jerome (4th century), Roman Catholic Scholar such as Cardinal Ximenes and Desiderus Erasmus of the sixteenth century; the great Bible translators John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, and Joahann Reuchlin of the sixteenth century; the Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin of the sixteenth century; Baptist Scholar/Pastors of the 17th century; the great Methodist commentary Adam Clarke of the nineteenth century; Bruce Metzger, Maurice Robinson, and Daniel Wallace of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. 

    It's not to say this discipline is not without its share of skeptics and cranks. However, the fruits of labor have been far more friendly and more supportive of Bible conservatives who hold to a high view of Scripture. As to how textual criticism or lower criticism serves the conservative view of the Pentateuch and other portions of Scripture in opposition to Higher Critical skepticism of the Bible, the later Christian theologian and apologist Norman Geisler writes in his "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics":

"The brief time gap and the large number of manuscripts compared to other works of antiquity vouch for the fact that the content of the Biblical texts has been unchanged".

The Assumptions of Higher Criticism

    Higher criticism was fraught with far more philosophical assumptions than its lower-criticism counterpart. Such presuppositions included:

A. Skepticism about either God's existence or intervention in the world.

B. The denial of miracles or their inclusion in the study of history. 

C. The denial of drawing forth objective truths from a specific text. 

D. The denial of the Bible's inerrancy and Divine inspiration.  

E. And the denial of the underlying unity of Scripture. 

More in the next post.