I have a love/hate relationship with creeds. I can't decide if they're a bad thing that can be helpful, or a good thing that can be harmful. I'm really of two minds on that one.
The point of a creed is to lay out the skeleton of a doctrine in simple, easy-to-remember terms:
The purpose of a creed is to act as a yardstick of correct belief. The creeds of Christianity have been drawn up at times of conflict about doctrine: acceptance or rejection of a creed served to distinguish believers and deniers of a particular doctrine or set of doctrines. For that reason a creed was called in Greek a σύμβολον, a word that meant half of a broken object which, when placed together with the other half verified the bearer's identity. (Wikipedia, "The Nicean Creed", last checked June 7, 2008)That is, creeds are not intended to be the summation of belief, nor even the extent of orthodoxy on a particular point. They are designed to be a set of baseline assertions.
The Bible is not a topical book. It's not a systematic theology by any means. Doctrine is derived by comparing different pieces of Scripture together to determine what Scripture says on a topic. Thus, any doctrine based on Scripture requires a certain level of "pulling together" different pieces to form a complete picture. Any given verse contains propositions that are inerrant and infallible, but no one verse is necessarily sufficient, it is as we view the whole counsel of God that we get the completion of a doctrine.
A creed is a very concise set of propositions that are drawn together to form a minimalist doctrine (or set of doctrines). A good creed is based on Scripture, but by no means is every creedal statement Scriptural.
So there is a definite sense where a creed is a good thing: it is very like a catechism in that sense. It provides a vehicle to teach doctrine to people without spending vast quantities of time and effort to derive the points of doctrine: it is a set of doctrinal conclusions.
But like all man-made things, creeds are dangerous to us in that they can easily lead to idolatry. I've heard people make statements to the effect that the Nicene Creed is the fundamentals of Christianity. There is a tendency for those in creedal traditions to view creeds as authoritative: they are treated with at least as much authority as Scripture. And here is where I have trouble with creeds.
God has spoken: He has spoken in time past to the fathers by the prophets, He has spoken in these last days in His Son. All Scripture has been given by inspiration of God: God spoke the very words of Scripture through human authors. No creed---neither the Apostles', nor the Nicene, nor the Athanasian---are breathed by God. They are the deductions of men---probably very godly men---of what God said in Scripture.
So I have a dilemna: on the one hand, creeds are designed to be a very useful tool that can help us concisely teach correct doctrine and identify error. On the other hand, the creeds themselves are neither inspired nor authoritative. God has spoken, but there is no reason to believe He spoke through creeds. No creed claims to be authoritative: they are self-consciously the statements of fallible men.
And it would be well to point out that the creeds themselves are not necessarily as purely given as one might suppose. The Nicene Creed, for example, contains the filioque in the Roman Catholic and Protestant versions, not in the Orthodox version. Which is more correct? That's the sort of question people have been burnt at the stake for answering. (There was a conciliatory joint statement issued in 2003 that doesn't say very much, except the Roman Catholic Church has rescinded the statements made in the Second Council of Lyons(?). So much for authority of church councils...) The Council of Ephesus forbade changing the Nicene Creed, which is interesting, as the Filioque almost certainly post-dates that Council. So reciting the Creed with the Filioque is effectively a transgression of the Council of Ephesus. And yes, I prefer the version with the Filioque.
I don't mention this to cast aspersion on either people or creeds: I mention this to point out that no creed is Scripture. Church history is the shakiest of foundations on which to build. God has spoken, and we ought to be in constant reform, as we measure everything by what He has said.
But humans have a tendency to creedal statements. Even among Christians who don't consider themselves creedal (and I am one of those), there are pithy sayings that have arisen as ad-hoc creeds. Here are some examples I know from my long time with "brethren" and Baptists:
- The Man who died is God, but God did not die.
- We are saved by faith alone, not by faith in faith alone.
- Baptism is an outward sign of an inward change(?).
These are essentially mini-creeds. They are statements that (at least in theory) sum up doctrines in a few words that are easy to remember.
And as others have pointed out, there is no shortage of simple creeds in Scripture. The statements in Philippians 2:5--11 might be considered a sort of creed:
Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:5--11, NASB)
I was particularly struck by a statement I read on a blog by a Baptist pastor, saying there ought to be Christian unity (very true), and that the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed are "a framework for defining essential Christian doctrine." Now, I don't want to kick at the guy unnecessarily, but I'm wondering how a Baptist pastor can confidently state he believes in the Nicene Creed? I spent long enough among Baptists to know they firmly believe baptism is neither salvific nor regenerative: they see it as a symbol, not a sacrament. So how does a Baptist say with a straight face: "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins"? I have no idea.
I suppose someone might interpret that line as something other than baptismal regeneration, but that would undermine the idea of the Creed as a point of unity: clearly Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and [many] Anglicans believe it means precisely that. A Creed subject to individual interpretation is hardly doing its job.
I have to confess I'm not sure how to take that statement.
So creeds are very natural, and are certainly not wrong in and of themselves. But there is tremendous danger in allowing anything (even good things) to come between us and God.
Seems like this is a repeated theme here.
