hrist calls us to beware of false prophets (Mt. 7:15), and the church is to "contend earnestly for the faith" (Jude 3). The entirety of 2 Peter discusses the importance of upholding truth and exposing falsehood in the church. These biblical exhortations, as well as the many other calls for attendance to sound doctrine, and the numerous scriptural warnings against falsehood and folly should instill within us an ardent desire to uphold a pure Gospel. We find in Christendom today an ungodly ecumenism which seeks to blur the lines of distinction between truth and error. We disapprove of these ecumenical efforts, because the Bible requires us to acknowledge the antithesis between the City of God and the City of Man: "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them" (Eph. 5:11).
How shall we tell which doctrines are true and which are false? "Believe only what the Bible teaches" is the answer offered by many honest lovers of truth. Theirs is an admirable claim, for it heeds Paul's encouragement not to think beyond what is written (1 Cor. 4:6). But does a general affirmation of the Bible sharply distinguish truth from falsehood?
We should note that remarks such as "I believe only what the Bible teaches" are, by definition, creedal statements. A creed is simply a statement of belief (the Latin term for "I believe" is credo, from which our English word "creed" is derived). Unfortunately, it is a creedal statement that is not very useful, for it detects only a few who disagree with sound doctrine. Its failure to be effective is manifest in two ways.
First, there are many doctrines which are as important as the doctrine of Scripture (which the little creed above addresses), thus it is far too limited. Many heretics throughout church history have claimed absolute allegiance to Scripture. These same heretics denied the deity of Christ, commended image worship, shunned salvation by grace, or trampled the Gospel in other ways. These very same heretics happily signed under the "nothing-but-Scripture creed," thereby still meeting the honest truth lover's test of orthodoxy. What good is a creed if it does not reveal those who deny sound doctrine?
Second, this minimalistic creed misfires when it encounters the claim that the Bible recognizes other authorities for truth to be final. For example, Roman Catholic apologists argue that the Bible does not teach sola Scriptura. They might gladly claim belief in nothing but the Bible—which, they say, teaches us to look to the Roman magisterium for understanding. Another example is found in liberal protestant thought, which alleges the teaching of Scripture to be that our subjective impulses provide the most reliable ground of truth. Both the Romanist and the liberal protestant hold weak views of biblical authority, yet also believe their views to be biblical! Here again, the nothing-but-Scripture creed fails to expose error.
Because it is limited and imprecise in what it addresses, the minimalistic creed discussed above is almost worthless. But there is also a third problem with it -- it provides no basis for doctrinal unity in the church.
The church is called to present a clear and unified body of truth to the world: "with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel" (Phil. 1:27; cf. 1 Cor. 1:10, Phil. 2:2). What is this truth we are to present? Is it simply "what the Bible teaches"? If the church's doctrine is no more specific than this, then it will proclaim a message that is confusing and imprecise. The audience won't be impressed.
A precisely drafted creed or confession, when properly used, is of great value in providing both a ground for unity and a basis for exposing heresy. To this thesis a number of objections are often raised. Three of the most common are considered below:
Objection 1: Creeds, confessions, and catechisms represent the sort of extrabiblical human tradition that Christ forbade to His church.
Answer: The principle used to support this objection is biblical, for we must not supplant the Word of God with uninspired words of men (cf. Mt. 15:3). But notice that the objection itself is expressed in non-biblical words. In order to avoid condemning himself with this objection, the objector must limit his words to those of Scripture only. Such limitation is ridiculous. Besides, we know it is lawful to "give the sense" of Scripture as did the Levites of old (Neh. 8:8). Creeds and confessions give the sense in a very clear and thoughtful manner.
In addition, a creed ought to contain commentary on the supremacy of Scripture, and one's allegiance to a creed, though loyal, should always be tentative.
Objection 2: Creeds and confessions are unnecessary because doctrinal unity and purity can be retained informally. Christians who teach one another and discuss doctrine can ensure agreement and protect the truth through their interaction.
Answer: The congregation that bears this objection actually adheres to a creed in practice while dishonestly professing not to. By requiring subscription to certain tenets, is it not a creedal body? And furthermore, wouldn't a creed be more effective if it were carefully recorded, rather than being left to the understanding and recollection of each individual in the body?
Objection 3: No man or ecclesiastical body has the right to dictate, through imposing a creed, what is to be believed.
Answer: Heavy-handed imposition of doctrine is indeed an abuse of authority; faithful church leaders will not attempt mind control. Church involvement and assent to doctrine are voluntary. If one insists on being part of a body while rejecting the doctrines the body embraces, or repudiating the rules by which the body is governed, his insistence is unreasonable. Furthermore, creeds provide protection from the threat of false doctrine that a teacher may try to propagate. Creeds are an effective check on teachers, thus they help prevent the imposition of error.
The church, as "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15), must precisely articulate the Gospel and expose counterfeits. In the performance of this task, creeds and confessions have historically proven to provide a bond of peace among the believers who esteem them, enabling them to go forth in unity. Congregations that refuse to publish their beliefs tend toward contention and strife.
