"A Protestantism which fails to acknowledge those historical roots and indeed to teach them to its young people leaves itself vulnerable to Canterbury and Rome"

Trueman wrote:

McKnight puts his finger on one of the key problems faced by those evangelicals who tend towards a no-creed-but-the-Bible approach: It is not quite Protestantism as the Reformers conceived of it. They delighted in the Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Athanasian Creeds. The Protestantism they founded has since had a rich history of confessions.

The very existence of these witnesses to the fact that classical Protestants understand that Christianity is not reinvented every Sunday when the minister opens his Bible and begins to preach. That being the case, it is critical that in educating the rising generation within the Church, there is proper acknowledgment of the role of history in the formation of Christianity and a proper appreciation for the richness of the Christian heritage.

How many Pastors know of, or even care about, the various creeds? They have great value, and we can learn a lot from them.

• I love the 1833 New Hampshire Confession.
• I think the GARBC’s Articles of Faith, which has it’s origins in the 1833 New Hampshire Confession, is probably the best Calvinistic, dispensational statement out there.
• I think the Athanasian Creed is the best Trinitarian statement ever.

How many Pastors struggle with issues or controversies without any anchor in, or even awareness of, church history that pre-dates Billy Graham? There’s nothing new out there; it’s been dealt with before. Will we learn from it?

When my family left a closet KJVO church, I made sure that I taught my family what the real fundamentals are, and what the Solas are and mean—at least at a basic level. There are a lot of so-called “evangelical” churches out there that are effectively heterodox in their treatment of the key issues of theology, in my probably not humble enough opinion.