thoughts and ruminations while in exile (1 Pet. 2:11)

This is my second post about creeds:

As a Christian within the Reformed tradition, I can very much appreciate your enthusiasm for the Bible to be our supreme authority. After all, one of the cries of the Reformers was “sola Scriptura” (Scripture alone). In the same vein, however, one of the tragedies of American Christianity is its misunderstanding and abuse of this Reformation principle. The Reformers insisted, however, that while the Bible is our only infallible authority, the Bible is not our ONLY authority. This is true because the Bible itself gives authority to qualified church leaders, namely elders (see Acts 15 and Jerusalem Council). If you are interested in reading more about this I highly suggest Keith Mathison’s work “The Shape of Sola Scriptura.”

Let me briefly respond to some of your points. You say, “if creeds say the same thing the Bible says, they are unnecessary.” But this is not true if there is a dispute about what the Bible itself actually says. I think your view would be correct if there was never a dispute about what a particular passage says. For example, John 3:16 says Jesus is God’s only begotten Son. The Arians said this meant that Jesus is a created being and did not eternally exist with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Thus, in their view, Jesus was not consubstantial with the Father. Therefore, the Nicene Creed responded and clarified the biblical position by noting that Jesus was “begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.” This response sheds light on what the Bible actually teaches.

As for the Alexander Campbell quote, I’m not sure everything he says is correct. His point about “sects” adopting creeds is not entirely accurate. In fact, it was the “sects” who refused to give assent to the creeds. The universal church put forth the creeds (namely, the Apostles’ and Nicene), and all those who gave assent to them showed themselves to be a part of the true church. It was the heretical groups that refused to accept the creedal statements. This has continued unabated in America. For example, the Unitarian Noah Worchester called upon Christians to reject the doctrine of the Trinity, throw away the creeds and simply study the Bible. Charles Beecher, a liberal, rejected what he called “creed-power” and called for “the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible.” That’s the problem with heretics; they always have a verse. And they have always misunderstood the true Protestant understanding of “sola Scriptura.” They think “sola Scriptura” does away with all secondary authorities. For this reason they reject the use of creeds. However, as Princeton theologian Samel Miller correctly pointed out in 1839, “the most zealous opposers [of creeds] have generally been latitudinarians and heretics.”

I’m also not sure what W. Carl Ketcherside means when he refers to men taking these “simple truths” and pouring them into “creedal moulds.” What simple truths? Is he referring to the “simple truth” of the Holy Trinity, or how Christ can be fully God and fully man at the same time? If he thinks these are “simple truths” that can easily be deduced from Holy Scripture then I must confess that he is smarter than Ignatius, Irenaeus, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzen, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and others. One wonders why all these men spent their time reflecting on all these issues. And when you study church history you come to see that it was all the orthodox theologians who defended the creeds! If it’s so easy then why was their so much debate in the early church surrounding these issue before creeds were even on the scene. If only the early church had Alexander Campbell to help them out everything would have been fine!

Yet, I’m not surprised that Alexander Campbell would say the things he did. He openly confessed that it was his desire to study the Bible as if no one had ever studied it before (there is a quote of him actually making such a statement). Interestingly enough, Lewis Sperry Chaffer said the exact same thing and he was a dispensationalist. One wonders how Chaffer and Campbell came to such different views when they were “just studying the Bible.” The point I’m making is that no one studies the Bible in a vacuum. Therefore, the Restoration Plea to simply “return to the Scriptures” is superficial and naïve. Haven’t you realized that all Christian traditions believe they are following the Bible? What you don’t seem to realize is that all appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture! So when you say, “And as to different interpretations – I simply go back to Scripture!” that means absolutely nothing since your opponent will say the exact same thing! You come off arrogant, and it’s as if you are saying, “Well, if you were only as smart as I am, then you would have the true understanding of Scripture.”

Your statement that “creeds is when the trouble began, as man began to put their twist on Scripture” is not true. This doesn’t make sense because it was orthodox believers who wrote the creeds! The church wrote the creeds because the heretics twisted Scripture. The heretics were spreading the lies! This is why it is outrageous to say that creeds divide. The creeds only divided the true church from the heretics. If there were no heresies being circulated the church wouldn’t have had to write the creeds. The creeds united the true believers!