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

In a discussion with a friend who is a "No creed but Christ" kind of guy, I wrote this response to him on Facebook. I hope this helps:

Just a few comments: First, I truly appreciate the emphasis the writer places on the Bible. I agree with him that it is the final authority for faith and practice. That being said, however, I do have a few reservations about affirming every point in the list Mr. Zieglar makes. I’m not sure I understand how creeds divide rather than unite. As believers, our unity is found in what we confess to be true. Considering that the creeds were formulated during the fires of controversy and were put forth to identify the true Christians and to condemn heresy, I don’t understand how utilizing them is unwise. They serve to unite us with our Christian brothers and sisters of the past. They teach us that we don’t have to reinvent the wheel, and they help us spot heresy; for, as Louis Berkhof noted, “History clearly teaches that, before a Church can really pass judgment on heresies, she must have some official standard or test.”

Now, I realize you might say that our final standard is the Bible, but nothing is accomplished by simply reciting the words of Scripture when it is the words of Scripture themselves that are the issue. It’s not enough to say, “I just believe the Bible.” Jehovah’s Witness claim to “just believe the Bible.” The question is: What do you understand Scripture to teach? In order to answer this question, we must make judgments about what we understand the Bible to teach. In doing this, we cannot simply cite Scripture. Rather, as David Yeago notes, we must employ “some particular, contingent verbal and conceptual resources; judgment making is an operation performed with words and concepts.” That is to say, if it is the words of Scripture that are being debated, we must use extrabiblical language to clarify what we mean.

Perhaps and illustration would help. During the Trinitarian controversy in the fourth century, there was a debate about the Christian doxology known as the Gloria Patri. Christians during their worship services would sing the Gloria Patri, saying, “Glory to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit.” However, the Arians would also sing this and affirm this to be true. Yet, these same Arians would not sing, “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.” They would not affirm the complete deity of all three Persons of the Trinity. So, the Christians changed the words of the doxology to exclude the Arians from their ranks. This exclusion brought unity to believers. I realize that the Gloria Patri is not a creed, but I’m using it as an example to reinforce the truth that creeds, like the Gloria Patri, help us know who is with us and who is against us.

Even if you don’t agree with the use of creeds and confessions, you should at least acknowledge the positive role they have played for the early Christians. After all, many of them were persecuted for the defense of the faith. Given their historical context, the creeds didn’t bring division, but unity. This helps us appreciate what our forefathers did. They outlined orthodoxy based on the church’s worship, the body of doctrine that had been handed down to them, and what all believers confessed. Notice that I didn’t mention the New Testament. The Nicene Creed (which all Christians agree is true) was formulated and confessed before the New Testament was formally acknowledged and the canon was closed. This should increase our respect for creeds. Sorry I wrote so much, but I felt I needed to say this. Since many in the Restoration Movement are quick to say, “No creed but Christ,” I sometimes wonder if they have fully comprehended the complexities of the early church and why creeds were necessary. Further, I question whether or not they fully appreciate the historical context out of which the New Testament arose. After all, the Bible didn’t fall out of the sky.
See More