Blogmatics—On Confessions of Faith

Blogmatics (i.e. what we at Ancient Paths believe)

You can find my own articulation of our beliefs in this post. But, the title of this blog being Ancient Paths, I thought it appropriate to also point to some of the old historic confessions that accurately represent the doctrinal beliefs we hold. So then…

Ancient Creeds

Though I take some exception with the specific wording here and there, I think the creeds have tremendously valuable formulations that, sadly, have been forgotten and ignored in much of modern Christianity. And, for that reason, we no longer have any moors by which to define historic Christian orthodoxy.

Confessions of Faith

I come from a tradition that typically has some rather considerable disdain for confessionalism. This is unfortunate for various reasons, and not necessarily characteristic of the older tradition of which I am a beneficiary. I wouldn’t necessarily call myself confessional, simply because of some of the connotations that term now carries. However, I think the historic confessions are indispensable to a robust understanding of theology, and I would consider myself to be more or less in line with these four confessions.

Some Modern Declarations

Again, with some minor differences in preferred wording, I have found the following declarations on specific topics (and two modern confessions) to be of considerable public value, and of tremendous personal benefit as well.

Extra Reading

I’ve found these confessions to be particularly helpful in their wording, for the most part, but unfortunately have some significant disagreements with the views expressed in one or more places.

  • Helwys’ Confession (1611) (with the exception of article 7 on falling from grace; but I especially appreciate his wording on election in article 5; particularly relevant to our day is article 16 on the appropriate size of a congregation—as Voddie would say, if you can’t say amen, you ought to say ouch)
  • The Standard Confession (1660) (a helpful Baptist confession, but my discomfort lies primarily in articles 12 and 14)
  • The Orthodox Creed (1679) (This is an important confession, but it’s problematic when it comes to the Adamic Covenant, and thus the active obedience of Christ)
  • A Short Confession or a Brief Narrative of Faith (1691) (This confession has some unfortunate wording concerning original sin and justification. Despite this, the sections on the extent of Christ’s death, providence, and election, are especially helpful)
  • New Hampshire Confession (1833) (This is a well-written Particular Baptist confession based loosely on the 1689; I disagree with their wording on Perseverance, and the Christian Sabbath, but the majority of the confession is solid)

For the Uncomfortable and/or Curious

If the idea of subscribing to historic confessions is new to you, you may find these articles from Founders Ministries helpful. Of course, Founders subscribes to the 1689 Second London Confession, which I disagree with at various points; however, their arguments and explanations are still valid and a very valuable introduction to the importance of utilizing the creeds and confessions.


If you’ve benefited from resources like this one, would you be willing to support our research and help us deliver more regular content? Please consider giving a one-time donation through PayPal with this link, or become a regular supporter through Patreon with this link and get access to more content each month!



Composing a Doctrinal Statement [intro and philosophy]

Composing a doctrinal statement can be one of the most arduous (but crucial) projects undertaken by a church. An obvious reason for this is theological disagreements. Another reason, less often considered, is differing philosophies of what a doctrinal statement should be — the purpose it should serve. There are those who think that the doctrinal statement should be totally minimalistic, only defining the absolute essentials for salvation, or perhaps outlining those doctrines which are essential to historic, orthodox Christianity. In this view, an attractive scenario is one where a Lutheran, a Methodist, a Baptist, a Presbyterian, a Mennonite, perhaps even a Catholic and a Pentecostal, could all sign off on the same statement, or at least not find anything offensive in the statement.

Others believe that the doctrinal statement should be a minutely detailed document — so thorough that only the senior pastor actually agrees with everything in the statement. Of course, there are also many positions all along this spectrum. I find myself somewhere right-of-center on the spectrum, believing the doctrinal statement should be detailed enough that the members can have real, functional unity on a number of issues, and be properly protected from error, but not so minute as to venture into either entirely unimportant details, or into unclear positions left up to personal opinion.

I believe the doctrinal statement should cover three main areas. First, it obviously should define the church as an orthodox Christian church. Beyond that, however, it should further define the church in areas of distinctions between “camps” (e.g. is this church congregational or presbyterian or episcopal? Is it dispensational or covenantal? Complementarian or egalitarian? Young-earth? Calvinistic? Etc). Lastly, I believe the doctrinal statement should include in it those issues which have become, rightly or wrongly, hot-button issues in the surrounding culture. So, the statement should have a clear stance (even if its stance is non-committal) on things like spiritual gifts, the definition of inerrancy, whether God knows the future, as well as a section on moral areas like abortion, euthanasia, sexuality, marriage, and divorce.

In light of this, one of the major projects I began this summer (and continuing into the present) was to draft a sample doctrinal statement that was detailed, precise, well-worded, and well-documented with verse references (many doctrinal statements are not). The doctrinal statement I ended with, after months of combining and tweaking some of the best, and adding much of my own wording as well, is certainly more detailed than most churches would like, and most likely contains a combination of doctrinal beliefs no one shares but myself. However, the goal of the exercise was to produce a detailed statement that was worded positively (as opposed to defining ourselves by what we are against), but articulated precisely enough to exclude certain theological positions for the protection of the church. I found this to be an indispensably important and beneficial exercise, and was pleased with the final result.

I’d like to share my statement, posting a section at a time, and at times make comments pointing out key features and specific wording that I thought critical for the precise articulation of the view and for the protection of the church from false doctrine.