No Creed but the Bible

Read Psalm 119:97-104 …

There has been a long-standing aversion to creeds and confessions in the Church of Christ … at least as long standing as those such as Stone and the Campbells made it clear that creeds and confessions have no part in the dogma of the Church. Creeds and confessions have certainly been around for some time, the oldest of which were drafted in response to heresies that began to trouble the Church in its early years. There is obvious value to those early creeds in teaching and affirmation of belief. In a time when illiteracy was common, a brief statement of the Biblical truths (opposing those rising heresies) that could be easily memorized was a valuable, even essential, means for combating errant thinking. The real problem with creeds and confessions became apparent as the years rolled by, and that problem was the division they created. Statements of faith, confessions, and creeds developed along denominational lines – each denomination having its own statement or creed that must be adhered to be a part of that denomination. Instead of simple truths to be used as teaching devices, creeds and confessions became a means of identifying man-made divisions.

So where does that leave one with a statement such as, “No creed but the Bible?” Does this constitute a creed or confessional statement that developed out of the Restoration Movement which has devolved into a source of denominational identification and therefore division? As with all the best answers, the answer is a qualified “yes” and “no.”

From the “yes” side, a statement such as “No creed but the Bible” is going to automatically set up division. Simply put, there are groups and denominations today that accept more than the Scripturesas sources for authority. The Roman Catholic Church recognizes the Pope and church tradition, both standing along side the Scriptures, as authoritative. Even the Protestant Reformation, that sought to have only the Scriptures as their source of authority, turned to various creeds and catechisms to identify themselves and to which their congregants must adhere. Sadly, the movement which cried sola scriptura as a call for unity and authority quickly divided itself along creedal lines. There are also religious systems that recognize books other than the Scriptures as authoritative, or place other works on a similar level as the Scriptures; the Book of Mormon being an obvious example. Therefore, when one says, “No creed but the Bible,” an immediate division is set up between those that use just the Bible and those that use more than just the Bible as their authoritative foundation.

But from the “no” side, the idea of “No creed but the Bible” was never meant to create a division in the Church, but to be a call for unity. There are those that wag their finger and cry, “Creed! Creed! Creed!” when a statement such as “No creed but the Bible” is mentioned, but this statement was only meant to be instructive. Early creedal statements are very useful as teaching tools but should never have become tools of division. “No creed but the Bible” expresses the singular truth that the Scriptures are the true authority; the Word of God is the only completely reliable source of instruction in the world. When one reads David’s declaration of the supremacy of God’s Word (Psa. 119), Peter’s remarks on the sufficiency of the “prophetic word” (2 Pet. 1:16-21), or Paul’s comments to Timothy on the inspiration of the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16-17) is there any doubt that these inspired writers consistently proclaimed the Word of God as the final authority for humanity and desired everyone to recognize that truth?

Frankly, if one holds to the sufficiency and authority of the Scriptures as complete and binding, then even if a statement such as “No creed but the Bible” causes division, that is a division gladly accepted. Using this brief “motto” as a means of reminding others, and ourselves, about the singular authoritative completeness that the Scriptures offer can be nothing but good. Such a statement should stand along other “creedal” statements which mark one as a child of God such as “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Eph. 4:4-6); or “… that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, …” (1 Cor. 15:3-4). The Word of God is a lamp that lights a path for our feet in a dark world (Psa. 119:105) and a statement that points one to that lamp is worthy to be repeated.

3 thoughts on “No Creed but the Bible

  1. What a great way to express and explain the ‘simplicity’ of the scriptures without the “what about this and that”. I have had so many of these conversations with folks; deaf ears, unfortunately. Thanks brother!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Good thoughts, Scott. Fits in well with 1 John 1. Too many give their attention to all sorts of human reasoning and forget the things that are written.

    Like

  3. Well crafted! Stating that creeds may be used as teaching tools but should not be used as authoritative identifiers of the faithful was an irenic way to reframe the conversation and direct attention back to the Bible. Thank you.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment