Dear Posterity,
Ask any evangelical today about the creeds and most likely you’ll be met with a blank stare. Because modern evangelicalism is relatively new (church historians trace evangelicalism to the Great Awakening with Wesley and Whitefield), most evangelicals today have little knowledge of Christian history simply because it’s not taught. Christians have lost touch with their history for a number of reasons, mostly because evangelicalism is heavily Jesus-centered instead of Trinity-centered, so the message coming from evangelical churches today is that Jesus is all that matters. The Trinity? Too complex, keep it basic. Church history? Irrelevant. The Great Tradition of faith? Well, theology is too dry and dusty, and it shakes the life out of vibrant communities…better shelve it for another time. Add to this the Reformation’s emphasis on reading Scripture for yourself (a very good exhortation!), which has led to a suspicion of the traditions of the church and an apathy of the church today to seek out what past Christians have said (a very bad practice).
The result has been Christians driven by personal experience and zeal rather than central doctrinal beliefs, which the Creeds brilliantly illumine.
As the early church grew in doctrinal accuracy (and it’s important to note that the basic beliefs of theology were fully intact in the earliest days of the church; thus, the teachings never changed over time, but the growth and refinement of understanding did), it synthesized its conclusions in creedal language, pulling together all the threads of Scripture, and there is consensus that the church fathers got it right. Imagine how helpful the Creeds would be for many converts who were unable to read the Bible due to illiteracy. Therefore, memorizing the Creeds so as to guard their hearts and not fall victim to alternative, heretical teaching became a safeguard for sound doctrine and orthodoxy, yet without the requirement to read/memorize the entire canon of Scripture (no small undertaking).
“We’ve lost touch with our history,” stated one pastor when I interviewed him on this subject. He continued:
“Our Creeds/confessions aren’t used as much today in evangelical churches, but the reason the creeds were developed were so that people could hold onto orthodoxy without memorizing the entire Bible. As you learn the Creeds, you imbibe them. So when I say, ‘This is the day that the Lord has made,’ you would immediately respond, ‘we rejoice and are glad in it’ because it’s something you inherently know.”
“First came doxology, the language of praise glorifying God, and only gradually in due time the doxa (praise) became orthodoxa (right praise, correct teaching).” –Thomas C. Oden, “General Introduction,” ACD, 1.xii.
Before we can decide whether Christians should get to know the creeds, we must first establish what the Creeds are:
The Apostle's Creed (AD 150 early version)
Reflects a growing standard of orthodoxy centering in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and has become the most widespread of all confessions of Christian faith.
Nicene Creed (AD 325 and rewording up until AD 381)
First official declaration of Christian doctrine and the universal theological cornerstone of virtually all subsequent Christian faith (many churches include the Nicene Creed in their “beliefs” section on websites). The Council of Nicea addressed and squashed many heresies popping up at the time: Ebionism (Jesus is only human); Docetism (Jesus is divine but not human/He was an allusion); Adoptionism (Jesus became divine when the Father adopted Him after He led such an upright life); Modalism (God is only one being but not three/the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “modes”); Sabellianism (type of modalism that said God manifested Himself as the Father in the Old Testament but as the Son in the New Testament, then changed again to the Spirit in modern day times); Arianism (the most famous heresy, still propagated today by the Jehovah’s Witnesses: Jesus was created by the Father at some point in time). Before Nicea, there were questions about whether Jesus was God or human. After Nicea, the questions turned into: what is the relationship between the divine and human natures? This led to a different set of heresies (addressed by the Chalcedon Council below)
The Athanasian Creed (AD 450)
Focuses on Trinitarian doctrine and Christology; it emphasizes the equality of the three persons in the Holy Trinity. Different from the Apostles and Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed includes anathemas (or condemnations of anyone who disagrees with the creed).
The Chalcedon Creed (AD 451)
Serves as the classical definition of Christology. The Council of Chalcedon addressed the following heresies: Apollinarianism (Jesus was God but didn’t have a human soul); Nestorianism (GOD didn’t die on the cross but Jesus the human did, thus, Jesus and the Father have distinct natures as opposed to distinct persons); Eutychianism (the divine nature overpowers Christ’s human nature, so there’s a blending of the two). With Chalcedon’s wording of “one and the same son,” it squashed Docetism and Nestorianism; with the wording, “truly God and truly man,” it snuffed out Docetism and Ebionism; in saying, “rational soul and body,” it trumped Apollinarianism; by stating, “before the ages begotten of the Father,” it annihilated Arianism and Adoptionism; and by declaring, “two natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably,” it effectively trounced Eutychianism and Nestorianism.
These primary confessions of ancient Christian history provide the framework for defining sound doctrine. Outside of these confessions are unbiblical, harmful, and heretical teachings, thus the language of the creeds is deliberate and strong. A careful study of the creeds reveals deliberate language such as “begotten, not made,” and that Christ is “one substance (homoousios) with the Father,” that He is “true God from true God.” This language is not merely perfunctory but rather a result of hundreds of theological experts from almost everywhere in the world convening in various councils (see chart below) for months of prayer, discussion, and diligent study.
In turn, the creeds protected people from falling into great error and allowed church doctrine to emerge in greater brilliance and clarity to prevent later generations from stumbling into the same or similar pitfalls. Considering today’s hodgepodge of alluring “isms”—romanticism, communism, socialism, empiricism, rationalism, transcendentalism, capitalism, Darwinism—having the knowledge of where the church has historically stood greatly helps inform where we should stand today. To place oneself outside of creedal teachings would be anathema.
However, it’s also important to remember that “for the Reformers as for all classical Protestants, philosophy, tradition, and the creeds, though helpful in expressing the doctrine of God, do not add anything fundamentally new. While not providing the logic, the Bible contains all the essential data for Trinitarian doctrine.” –Scott Horrell, Trinity, Ch. 1, “Revelation and Mystery: Approaching the Doctrine of the Trinity.”
The creeds, then, strengthen believers today and provide a lens for us to interpret Scripture. As Scott Horrell stated, “Any worthy theological method respects the efforts in church history to articulate the biblical-apostolic tradition.” One ministry leader who I interviewed on this topic stated, “It’s helpful to see how the creeds worked out our faith over time. They’re progressive and responsive to issues in their contemporary time, so it’s a model for what we should do today in handling new issues that emerge.”
On the other side of the coin are those evangelicals who do not support the teaching or knowledge of the creeds. When I asked one pastor about his perspective on the creeds, he described a particularly impactful memory he had of an unbelieving family member who recited an entire creed next to him in church, but had never placed her faith in Christ. For him, that kind of hypocrisy was at odds with the fundamental truth of the creed. He stated:
“[The Creeds] are not something I practice because some things become religious instead of a relationship. I understand the repetition of it, but I point people to study God’s Word themselves. I try to get people to learn about God, then apply that knowledge to their lives. For me, I went through repeating it growing up but it wasn’t a part of me or who I was. The Creeds can become more religious and liturgical. I’d rather that people have a creed in their heart because God’s Word matters more than our words.”
This pastor highlighted a crucial truth: classical Protestantism and evangelicalism have insisted that the Bible is the measure, the “norming norm,” by which all tradition and creeds must be judged. It is at the following juncture that I depart from this particular pastor’s perspective, however: the creeds were intended for Christians, not unbelievers. Naturally, we’d witness unbelievers (or even hypocritical Christians living according to their flesh) approach the recitation of the creeds in a robotic, empty, and obligatory manner. For the Christian, the richness of the creeds instills a sense of respect and appreciation for those who have gone before us as a kind of patristic cloud of witnesses, not to mention an understanding of orthodox theology by simple osmosis via recitation.
Rather than assume the role of absolute authority, theological tradition—and in this case, the creeds—should function ministerially by informing and guiding the church; the Bible should always remain a Christian’s absolute authority.
“As the Nicaean fathers grounded their decisions primarily in the Scriptures, so must we.” –Scott Horrell
Therefore, when it comes to classic orthodoxy, to remember the past is to preserve the future. To couple the vibrance and renewed vigor of evangelicalism—with its emphasis on Trinitarian theology, Christology, and the work of the Spirit—with the ancient ecclesiastical precedence established by our progenitors in our great tradition of faith, means we are on the brink of something entirely thrilling.
With every esteem and respect,
