tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9387707.post110764998618006610..comments2024-01-05T13:36:55.379-06:00Comments on Two-Edged Sword: the Federal Vision as Anti-creedalLeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10422257306176024118noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9387707.post-1108489164352085682005-02-15T11:39:00.000-06:002005-02-15T11:39:00.000-06:00It actually is not. Schaff is not against having ...It actually is not. Schaff is not against having creeds, but he is against creeds as ‘apt summaries of God’s word’, which is usually how people subscribe to them. Creeds were fine with Schaff as long as they change with the times. Schaff favored change in the Westminster Confession because in the 1600 the Confession was an apt summary of God’s Word, but in the 1900’s it no longer was a good summary. This runs against the whole idea of Confessions and Creeds. For Schaff, doctrine developed, and if the creeds did then they were fine, but if not then they were worthless. <br /><br />In my opinion someone who thinks creeds must constantly be changed is just as anti-creedal as one who rejects creeds and confessions altogether.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10422257306176024118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9387707.post-1108479949426216692005-02-15T09:05:00.000-06:002005-02-15T09:05:00.000-06:00"Philip Schaff argued for changing the Westminster..."Philip Schaff argued for changing the Westminster Confession of Faith toward the end of his life"<br /><br />I would think that would actually be a very pro-creedal stance, to actually change it to reflect what one thought was biblical, rather than allowing things to diverge from it on the sly.pdughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09832284495239324375noreply@blogger.com