No Creed but the Bible?

Pretty much as soon as we look at a passage and say “it means A and those who say it means B are wrong,” we have the beginnings of a creed. Because all creeds and confessions are is collections of important interpretations. Granted “creed” has a connotation of authority that maybe a “confession” or “statement of faith” doesn’t, but that’s mostly imaginary. Most churches/ministries with a statement of faith insist that you agree with it to get on board and stay on board, and they are usually willing to say that if you don’t agree with it, you’re into some serious error, maybe even heresy.

So it’s really pretty silly to be anti-creed and pro-statement of faith.

One caviat though: many who are pro “creed” mean “one of the historic, widely recognized creeds of the church.” I can see being a non-fan of those and still being an advocate of your custom statement of faith. Those are compatible attitudes. But I like the approach David Wenkell et al. took with the 1644/46 London: seek something with a bit of historical venerability to it and update the language.

You can always supplement with a couple of statements on eschatology etc.

The one thing where I disagree to a significant point is where McKnight says that the creeds provide the best starting place by which to understand Scripture—some may, but which one?

And really, as part of a team looking for a new youth pastor for my church, it’s front and center as part of the interview process more or less is asking what the criteria for separation ought to be.

I couldn’t tell entirely what persuasion he was, but he was clearly probing the head pastor to figure out “the company answer.” My guess is that the FBFI would not entirely approve of him, happy to say.

[Bert Perry]

The one thing where I disagree to a significant point is where McKnight says that the creeds provide the best starting place by which to understand Scripture—some may, but which one?

And really, as part of a team looking for a new youth pastor for my church, it’s front and center as part of the interview process more or less is asking what the criteria for separation ought to be.

The major creeds don’t disagree with one another about much. Some are just more complete than others or say it a little better. Go back far enough and it’s even harder to find one to disagree with. Nicene, Apostle’s. The only thing questionable in the latter is the “descended into hell” detail that some versions have and some don’t. I don’t personally think Jesus did that—or, more precisely, I am not confident that that happened.

[Aaron Blumer]

Bert Perry wrote:

The one thing where I disagree to a significant point is where McKnight says that the creeds provide the best starting place by which to understand Scripture—some may, but which one?

And really, as part of a team looking for a new youth pastor for my church, it’s front and center as part of the interview process more or less is asking what the criteria for separation ought to be.

The major creeds don’t disagree with one another about much. Some are just more complete than others or say it a little better. Go back far enough and it’s even harder to find one to disagree with. Nicene, Apostle’s. The only thing questionable in the latter is the “descended into hell” detail that some versions have and some don’t. I don’t personally think Jesus did that—or, more precisely, I am not confident that that happened.

Aaron, my reluctance to endorse many creeds stems from my experiences interacting with those whose fealty to Augsburg & Westminster seems to have strongly limited their ability to understand them as they are. Make the creed the Apostles’ Creed plus the Solas, the Fundamentals, and the Trinity, and I’m with you. Go terribly further, and I’ve see a few things that don’t work really well.

We recite the Heidelberg confession every Sunday. I really like doing so and I do think it tends to unite the congregation around the doctrine of the church.