According to Oxford Dictionary Online, a Creed is: “a system of Christian or other religious belief; a faith; a formal statement of Christian beliefs, especially the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed; a set of beliefs or aims which guide someone’s actions.” It’s important to note that there are three ecumenical or universal creed’s. Further, when referencing ‘catholic’ on the Apostles Creed only, it means ‘universal’ and is not a reference to the Roman Catholic Church. The other three traditional creeds do reference the literal Roman Catholic Church, and in context the Universal Invisible Church.
The most quoted, posted, and cited is The Apostles’ Creed, from 390 A.D.: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic* Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.”
The next is The Nicene Creed, from 325 A.D. And last but not least (in number of words) is The Athanasian Creed—written against the Arians, in 445 A.D. There is an argument that ‘older is better’ especially in relation to manuscripts for the Bible. It’s simply not true, but this is the theory to the Creeds as well, that the Apostle’s Creed is the authoritative apology for the christian faith due to it’s age (390 A.D.).
In reality, the first mention of a meeting to discuss doctrine was the decision to choose the 12th Apostle (Matthias) in Acts 1 in AD 33. This was a single local church which referenced only to the Bible for instruction and practice (Psalm 69.25 for v.20). I would also argue that the text they drew from wasn’t even contextual to what they were doing. The text’s application, did not apply in this case. Yes, I am saying they made a mistake. They took matters into their own hands, doing as so many churches today, focusing on the details that do not matter. They were more concerned in replacing a position, and fulfilling the quota of 12, rather than what they were there for in the first place. They were instructed to “wait” by Jesus and He would baptize them with the Holy Spirit in not many days. He did. Instead of waiting for that promise, they made an executive church decision without guidance of the Spirit. This can be proven by the calling of the Apostle Paul. In his own words he said— “And last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.” (1 Corinthians 15.8). The same thing plagues churches of our stripe today. There is such a fear of being like someone else, Pentecostals in this case, that there is little to no mention of the Holy Spirt directing the affairs of churches. Normally stated as: “all you need is a Bible”. When in fact, they had that and see what they did. We need direction, directly from Him, interpreting and guiding us in said truth, as Jesus said He would in John 16. When this element is not in place, men do what men do… legislate. Some have said— ‘If only the Apostles had a written set of beliefs and procedures to go by, wouldn’t that be easier?’ Yes. But doesn’t it also remove the mind of Christ (Holy Spirit) and reduce us to the minds of men?
The 2nd was an actual ‘conclave’ or ‘council’ with representatives from several churches, and Apostles. It was held in AD 52 in Jerusalem and we find it recorded in Acts 15. They reference the Old Testament scriptures, personal testimonies, events in the life and teachings of Christ (our Gospels). They used this to debate culture and humanity, citing Genesis through Deuteronomy, about Gentile and Jewish rights under New Testament blood. These are some heavy items to be discussing. Nevertheless, they needed discussing. Many were being legislated into works for righteousness, by the logical thoughts of men. Even though logical, they were wrong. So a meeting had to be convened.
In each of these cases, the authority was the scripture alone. In each one there was: 1) a need for the Holy Spirit’s guidance; or 2) a guided discussion by the Spirit Himself. For the second conclave, in Acts 15.28-35, there was an epistle drafted to declare what was discussed and decided. From this we have our grounds of an ‘articles of faith’ and such publications. These should be for instruction use only. They are not the authority and hold no authority now or ever. The final authority is still, just the Word of God.
The Inspired Word. These creeds are an effort to gather conformity. Conformity to belief isn’t the same as unity of faith. In Ephesians 4.13 the scripture says— “Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:”The Word of God is and always has been the standard to which we live. It is our final word and more so, authority, for every rule of faith and practice, both public and private. Yet, a creed is simply a statement of belief, derived from the Latin word credo, to believe.
We need to process this by asking: Why need a statement of belief if you derive your belief from faith, and faith from the Word of God? (Romans 10.17). On the other hand, most churches have a statement of belief either within their by-laws or posted in documentation within their files. The purpose of the statement of belief is simply that, a statement. It is not to live by or to exhaust all faith-in-practice. In fact, by its own definition, ‘credo’ means by application: “a filtered response.” Each one of these three traditional creeds, were a response to an event, a slip in doctrine, a shoring up or pulling in of ranks among fellowship. They also were used for simply providing for ones beliefs in a concise statement. In such, we have grounds also to create many manifestos of thought when times call for it. But these will only be statements of, and not the, faith.
Why baptists do not traditionally hold to creeds. Well, for one, the Bible is our final authority. As well intentioned as experts can be, they are not infallible and can mis-interpret scripture. No man, or group of men, can be allowed to pass as final authority. A filtered response, can and has been taken over time, as the final answer. This has happened in many protestant and liturgical leaning churches today with the creeds. Secondly, There is a loss of meaning. Over time, even with repetition, the meaning of a statement loses its meaning. On the other hand, the Bible is inspired and supernaturally interpreted by a real-time teacher, the One who wrote it, the Holy Spirit. Third, there is always a need for replacement. In response to an issue, we quote and expound upon the Bible. In so doing, we may take to pen or internet to clarify a position or series of positions (credo). In time though the issue will change, and so therefore, will the response. The issues will always change, but the response, if solidified, does not. If solidified only in that one issue(s), the relevance of the person or group begins to come into question.
We need to constantly reaffirm what we believe, at every single interval we can. This is necessary for the generation at present, and the ones coming. As was stated many years ago, “we are only one generation away from apostasy.” This is the crutch of our study.
It is my belief then: That the teachings of our doctrines straight from the Word of God is essential. Forms of written manifestos are not unscriptural, rather scriptural (Acts 15). But in no way is a manifesto to replace the straight truths of scripture. Nothing is to be taken for granted, and we should never expect that disciples in a particular body, are in unity of faith just because they have simply heard the truth.