Friday, January 19, 2007

No Creed But...

Paul McCain's Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions blog began one of its early discussions by looking at the popular perception of the historic creeds. As an illustration, a graphic was posted featuring "lost souls" holding a Bible, unable to see the Bible because a clergyman has placed his hand over the “lost souls’” eyes. The clergyman does not look at the Bible; instead he reads from a book titled "Human Creeds" and says: "What else would you like me to teach you about God's Word?"

The illustration reminds me of a popular phrase: "No creed but the Bible!" The statement is piously intended, wanting to place a high view on the authority of the Sacred Scriptures for Christian faith and life. But there is a problem: There is no such thing as a creedless view of the Bible. If you maintain “no creed but the Bible”, then I have to ask you: “What do you believe that the Bible says? Is it necessary for others to believe as you do, or not?” “What interpretation(s) are biblically acceptable and which are unacceptable?” “What teachings of the Bible are authoritative for what we say and do today; please explain how such biblical teachings are to be applied?”

As soon as any attempt is made to answer any of these questions – a creed (an “I believe”) has been formulated. That creed may fall in line with the ancient and historic creeds, what has been believed, taught, and confessed by others for a long time; or it may be something new and original that no one else in the history of the whole world to the present time has believed, taught, or confessed. Whatever the case, some formulation of a creed or confession accompanies the Bible to explain and apply what the Bible says.

Perhaps those who use the phrase “no creed but the Bible” really intend to say that the historic creeds and confessions are not biblical. I have frequently heard that my communion fellowship, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, is not biblical, because that particular phrase does not appear anywhere in the Bible. Response: If this is how we are to understand what it means to be biblical, then the only biblically mentioned church (still in existence) to which a person may belong is the one mentioned in Romans 1:7.

The historic creeds and confessions are not found word-for-word in the Bible, yet this fact alone does not make them “unbiblical". A different question must be asked to determine whether such creeds and confessions are biblical, whether they are a faithful exposition of the Sacred Scriptures, whether they teach and confess the same Faith handed down by the holy prophets and apostles in the sacred writings.

No comments: