No Creed But Christ I. Introduction A. A question worth exploring: who are we? 1. An attempt to understand what makes us “us,” and not “them” 2. It can become an attempt to alienate, hate, or condemn “them,” but need not be 3. How come we are who we are, believe what we believe, do what we do? B. The question of “who we are” invariably must reckon with our heritage: what have we been given? 1. We can understand that the past is an anchor in both senses of the term: as providing grounding, but also impeding movement 2. “Who we are” does not have to be entirely defined by “what we have been” 3. Nevertheless, even if we wished to change many things about our heritage, we first still must grapple with that heritage: what is it that we have been given? What was done in the past that continues to shape us? 4. We are not going to be able to effectively understand who we are if we do not reckon with who we have been and why C. The early twenty first century has proven to be a time of identity crisis in the faith 1. All who profess Christ are experiencing one level of identity crisis: who are we as Christians in a society rapidly becoming all the more “post-Christian,” who believes that Christianity has been tried and found wanting (even though the “Christianity” tried has not well reflected the Christ), in which the Christian faith is looked at with great skepticism and derision? 2. As members of churches of Christ, we are experiencing a further level of identity crisis: who really are we and what do we really stand for? a. Having gained some currency in “greater Evangelicalism” thanks to its more ecumenical posture, should we see ourselves in greater alignment with Evangelicalism, or should we continue to insist on our distinctiveness? b. How important is our doctrinal stance versus our practical behaviors? Is “soundness” in a church primarily defined by what is taught or what is done? c. What should be our ideals? What do we privilege and prioritize among the ideals in the messy and compromised world of the real? D. In the midst of such an identity crisis, we do well to explore how we have arrived where we are, and the heritage we have been bequeathed: what of the restoration plea in the twenty-first century? 1. Is there still value to the call to the restoration of the New Testament faith? 2. How do we best restore New Testament faith in the twenty-first century? E. To this end, let us explore the call for no creed but Christ 1. What are creeds? How did they develop? 2. What are the difficulties which come along with creeds? 3. How do we contend for the faith without devolving into creedalism? II. The Creeds A. Modern Americans can be forgiven for asking what creeds are and why they would matter 1. Few things better exemplify the cultural victory of liberalism in terms of personal conscience and liberty than the diminishment of the creeds in modern Christian faith and practice 2. Two hundred years ago a Christian who conscientiously objected to a certain creed might well find himself out of association, perhaps even employment, and social standing; two hundred years before that such a one was liable to be burnt at the stake! 3. As with all things liturgical, creeds are making a bit of a comeback in some aspects of “Christendom”; we do well to explore creeds, where they came from, and what led to them B. What is a creed? 1. Creed from the Latin credo, “I believe” 2. Creeds are statements of belief a. To those who adhere to creeds and support them, they represent statements of the faith designed to safeguard Christian orthodoxy from heresy b. They are known for their “I believe...” statements; hence, creeds C. Creeds and the Bible 1. Perhaps the closest the Old Testament comes to a creed is the shema of Deuteronomy 6:4-5 a. Israel was to hear that YHWH their God was one God b. They were to love God with all their heart, soul, and might c. Later Israelites would recite the Shema multiple times a day in a “creedal” way d. And yet it originally was part of a larger exhortation; “creedal” use of the statement is not wrong, but was not imposed as a requirement, any more or less so than affirmation of any other part of the Torah 2. In the New Testament, the “creed” is the substance of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God a. Acts 8:37 seems to be a later interpolation, but it is based on Peter’s confession, and we have every reason to believe the eunuch would have made a confession similar to this b. Jesus Himself made a similar confession to Pilate according to Paul in 1 Timothy 6:13 c. Timothy made the same good confession before witnesses in 1 Timothy 6:12; Paul reminds him of this to encourage him to fight the good fight of faith and hold fast to the eternal life He has found in Jesus d. The Hebrews author expects Christians to hold fast to their confession in Hebrews 3:1, 4:14, 10:23 3. Those who affirm creedal Christianity perceive and interpret creedal elements in certain New Testament passages, particularly Philippians 2:5-11, 1 Timothy 3:16 a. We should not be surprised that those who affirm creeds would see creeds in the text b. Of the two 1 Timothy 3:16 has the strongest argument, since Paul frames it as the confession of the mystery of godliness c. Nevertheless, Paul does not call them creeds; it is not expected that they are specifically to be recited or imposed as standards in ways other words or passages would not d. Futhermore, we cannot be sure they are really creedal: they could just as easily be common, unofficial phraseology (see: “providentially hindered,” “guide, guard, and direct us,” “separate and apart,” etc.), or perhaps reflect the substance of early Christian hymnody e. All of these assume that these verses are not of Paul’s own crafting but reflect commonly used terms or phrases, and that itself is an assumption! 4. The New Testament does expect the affirmation and practice of “the faith,” and the substance of “the faith” has its limits in that which was made known to all Christians through the Apostles and their associates, as seen in Jude 1:3 5. Thus, there is “the faith,” but at no point in the New Testament is there a codified, rehearsed summation or declaration of that faith beyond the statement that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God: hence, no creed but Christ a. The declaration of faith is valued, but not in terms of establishing orthodoxy, but as a commitment of faith to be lived out b. Confession demands repentance and reformation in conduct, as Paul and the Hebrews author attest; as we will see, creeds do not c. The only “creed” for Christians is the truth that Jesus is the Christ; everything else is to flow from that in Him, as expected in Colossians 2:1-9 D. The Rule of Faith to the Apostles’ Creed 1. After the death of the Apostles the early Christians were continually embattled with various false doctrines and teachers, as expected in 1 Timothy 4:1 and in other passages 2. Early Christian apologists would insist on the “rule of faith,” which in its earliest formation involved the deposit of faith in a way akin to Jude 1:3: the substance of what is true in Christ, validated by the testimony of the Apostles and their associates 3. By the fourth century, many had codified the “rule of faith” into what would be known as the Apostles’ Creed 4. It was claimed that each of the Apostles contributed a line, or that it originated in the statements of the Apostles, but in truth it represents a compilation of various phrases written by early Christians over the previous 300 years 5. The Apostles’ Creed a. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of Heaven and Earth. b. I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord. c. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. d. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was buried. e. He descended into Hell. f. On the third day He rose again. g. He ascended to Heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. h. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. i. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen. 6. “Hell” is understood, and revised among some groups, to simply refer to the realm of the dead; “catholic” originally involved “universal,” not the denomination of the name, reflected in the revision to the “holy Christian church” 7. Substantively the only disagreements to be had with the Apostles’ Creed is perhaps in its formulation of Jesus’ experience between His death and resurrection, yet even then, we recognize that He did spend time in the realm of the dead 8. The Apostles’ Creed intended to enshrine Christian orthodoxy against the Gnostics, the Ebionites (=Jewish Christians), and any other group deemed sectarian 9. The movement from confession of belief in Jesus as the Christ, and the insistence on making good on that confession through faith in practice, to rehearsing a statement of belief defines the first few centuries of Christianity, due to Greek philosophical influence and the intensity of argument and conflict with heretical groups E. The Niceno-Constantinopolitan (Nicene) Creed 1. Another purpose of creeds would become clear with the development and insistence on the Niceno-Constantinopolitan (more commonly known as the Nicene) Creed 2. The Nicene Creed comes out of the Council of Nicaea in 325 3. The Council was called by the Emperor Constantine to deal with Arianism 4. Arianism: from Arius, a Christian of Egypt, who claimed Jesus as the greatest of the created beings, but still of the creation (highly oversimplified) 5. Many found Arianism persuasive, and schism was a strong possibility 6. In the Council Nicholas of Lyra famously punched Arius; Arius was declared heretical 7. The Nicene Creed was written so as to not give Arians any ability to say it without compromising their Arianism (Jesus as “begotten, not made”); it would thus delineate between the “orthodox” from the “Arian,” to separate out the latter from the former 8. And yet, for about 50 years, Arianism became ascendant: many Arians took on bishoprics across the eastern Roman Empire, many Emperors either aligned with them or attempted to find some kind of middle ground between the Arians and the orthodox 9. Through the work of some Roman bishops and especially the dogmatics of Athanasius of Alexandria the orthodox again gained the upper hand against the Arians; the second ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381 re-ratified the Nicene Creed and modified it, removing some anathemas and adding some aspects regarding the Holy Spirit; thus what is known as the Nicene Creed is really the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed 10. The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed a. We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, of all there is, seen and unseen. b. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. c. Through Him all things were made. d. For us men and our salvation He came down from Heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit He was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. e. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; f. He suffered, died, and was buried. g. On the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; h. He ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. i. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and His Kingdom will have no end. j. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [Greek; Latin, and in the West, “and the Son” (Latin filioque) is added] k. With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified. l. He has spoken through the Prophets. m. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. n. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. o. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. 11. The addition of the filioque would become a defining dogmatic distinction between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy; rarely has there been as much fighting and animosity over one word as with filioque 12. A similar creed, called the Athanasian Creed, allegedly written by Athanasius but probably originating in Spain in the sixth or seventh centuries, was formulated and considered authoritative; it went to even greater specificity in its opposition to Arianism 13. Substantively there is not much with which to argue with the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (nor, for that matter, with the Athanasian Creed) 14. Yet the story of its formulation and its purpose are nakedly sectarian in character: to ferret out Arianism and to make a distinction between the orthodox and the Arians 15. Even that phraseology indicates how to the victors go the spoils: orthodox means “right belief” 16. Arianism would be spread among the pagan German nations, but would finally be almost entirely eliminated by the end of the first millennium, although in ignorance many Bible students stumble into it or related heresies (modalism, Sabellianism, etc.) 17. Many creedalists claim that the Holy Spirit was involved in the guidance of these movements, and orthodoxy was maintained and schism ultimately averted; perhaps so here, but not in the next instance! F. The Confession of Chalcedon, or the Chalcedonian Definition 1. On the heels of Arianism came another massive disputation in “Christendom” in the East, involving politics and factionalism as much as anything substantive: the nature of Jesus 2. On the one side, the Antiochenes represented by Nestorius, and what would be deemed Nestorianism (officially radical dyophysitism): Jesus as fully, almost separately two natures, human and divine, so that Mary could not be called Theotokos, God-bearer, only Christotokos, Christ-bearer 3. On the other hand, the Alexandrians represented by Cyril of Alexandria, and in the extreme Eutyches, espousing Eutychanism (officially monophysitism): Jesus’ humanity as essentially swallowed up by His divinity, basically of one nature 4. Nestorius and the Antiochenes almost certainly did not believe in Nestorianism; their opponents took their views to an extreme they did not 5. Cyril of Alexandria leveraged his power and influence to demonize Nestorius and Nestorianism; the Council of Ephesus in 431 condemned Nestorius and affirmed Cyril; but a Second Council of Ephesus was called in 449 which affirmed monophysitism, but this was not attended by delegates from Rome and would be known as a “robber council” 6. The ecumenical Council of Chalcedon was called in 451; it attempted to navigate the waters between “Nestorianism” and monophysitism 7. It did not come out with a creed per se, but a definition or confession 8. The Chalcedonian Confession, or Chalcedonian Definition: We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; (Greek ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως; Latin in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεόν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us. 9. As you can tell, we are a long way from “I believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God”! 10. Theologically, the Chalcedonian definition is not terribly problematic 11. Yet it is a curious thing, for to the Alexandrians it looked like a complete capitulation to Nestorianism; they all claimed to be honoring Cyril of Alexandria, but it would be hard to believe that Cyril would have approved of the definition (he had died beforehand) 12. Yet Chalcedon would not end as favorably as Nicaea did; the controversy led to schism, with the “Nestorian” Church of the East going one way, the monophysite Syrian Orthodox and (Egyptian) Coptic Churches going the other way, and the rest of the Eastern Orthodox in the middle, and all over Chalcedon 13. In fact, the persecution suffered by Egyptian Copts from the Orthodox Byzantine Emperor and his forces meant that many welcomed the Muslim invasions of the 630s: they experienced greater toleration under the Muslims than the Orthodox! 14. Savage truth: to this day, anyone who can tell you exactly what the ground of the Christological controversy really was, how it could be thus argued, and how it could be determined to any great level of specificity based on what God has made known about Jesus in the Scriptures is a fool and a liar, and most explain it more in terms of the Alexandrian /Antiochene competition and conflict than anything else! 14. Chalcedon is the demonstration of the extremes of creedalism: the infusion of power and politics and using declarations in great specificity to delineate on issues that might not ultimately need delineating, or could even be fully delineated G. Other creeds 1. The Apostles’ Creed, Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, Athanasian Creed, and the Chalcedon Definition represent what is known as the “ecumenical creeds,” the supposed basis of unity of “historic Christian orthodoxy” 2. Others would come up with other types of creedal statements 3. The Lutherans hold firm to the Augsburg Confession (1520/1530) 4. The Westminster Confession of Faith is a major one, developed in 1646 as part of the Westminster Standards for the Church of England, but truly Calvinistic and most prevalent among the Reformed, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists 5. Many early Restoration Movement preachers were put on ecclesiastical trial and condemned because of no longer holding to various aspects of the Westminster Confession of Faith 6. Many denominational organizations have their own creeds: Baptists have various confessions of faith, the Anglicans have the Thirty-Nine Articles and Lambeth Articles, and so on 7. Creedalism now is seen in the declaration of “statements,” and many have even come out in recent years: the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978), the Nashville Statement regarding sexuality (2017), etc. H. Creedalism is thus seen in the warp and woof of “Christendom” I. What shall we say about creeds and creedalism? III. Creedalism A. We can understand the impetus toward creedalism 1. Christians are to contend for the faith delivered by the Apostles (Jude 1:3) 2. Many disagreements and arguments have arisen about various aspects of the faith 3. Statements can help to clarify theology and work through its implications 4. The substance of the historical, “ecumenical” creeds is generally theologically unproblematic; in many respects, the arguments which engendered them were important in their clarifications 5. Through statements the essence of the faith can be easily communicated and taught 6. Such statements might expose wolves in the midst of the sheep B. While creedalism is understandable, it is worth noting that the basic confession of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the Living God, was sufficient in early Christianity 1. Yes, John would insist on greater specificity, of confessing that Jesus came in the flesh (2 John 1:6-10, etc.), but never insisted on a new formula 2. Christians are expected to contend for the faith, to resist and rebuke false teachers, and mark those who teach contrary to the Gospel (Romans 16:17-18, 2 Timothy 2:24-26, Jude 1:3) 3. But the Apostles did not feel compelled to insist on one particular creed or formulation; beyond the basic confession of Christ, none is made explicit C. Whereas creedalism is an attempt to solve some problems, it creates new ones 1. Creedalism is inherently sectarian: the point of creeds is to define certain beliefs and persons as “in” and thus others as “out” 2. At times this proves necessary (Nicaea); at other times it proves unnecessarily fractious and divisive (Ephesus/Chalcedon) 3. Creeds brook no dissent; historically those who did dissent were treated harshly by those who affirmed them D. All creeds are caught in a catch-22: if they are truly Biblical in substance, we can simply point to the Scriptures which teach or justify them and such should be sufficient; if they prove necessary to clarify things, are they not additions to what God has made known in the Scripture? E. It may be a chicken or egg issue, but creedalism and reduction of Christianity to a set of principles go hand in hand 1. Perhaps it was the movement toward a more Greek philosophical view of the faith which led to creedalism, or perhaps the move toward creeds made it easier to reduce the faith to a set of propositions like in Greek philosophy 2. Regardless, whereas the confession of Jesus as Christ was meant to lead to reformed life in the shape of Jesus, creeds do not ask for behavior 3. To this day the creeds put the emphasis on dogmatic principles rather than lived faith 4. To many Evangelicals and others who care deeply about matters of faith among the sectarian ecumenicalists, adherence to the “ecumenical” creeds still defines Christianity from the “cults”: it still sorts who they think is “in” (Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Mainline Protestant, Evangelical) from who is “out” (Latter Day Saints, Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists) F. We again emphasize that the theological/doctrinal substance is generally not the issue, but the dogmatism about insisting on agreement about postapostolic phrasing 1. It can tell you everything that many creedalists have a hard time understanding how a Christian would have no difficulty with the substance of the creeds but still have issues with the idea of creeds 2. It is not a matter of disputing the doctrine; it is a matter of disputing the need to get everyone to sign onto a particular phrasing of the issue based in disagreements and factions of a given time and age, and which may not be responsive to issues of another time and age 3. Creeds are ossified documents and have led to great contentiousness; whatever is substantively true in them, when respected in their Biblical contexts, can be continually phrased to make sense in whatever time and culture we find ourselves 4. But why the need to impose a particular formulation as a litmus test? That is not of Scripture; that goes well beyond Scripture! 5. If you do not think that disagreeing in agreement is a thing, you have not participated in many doctrinal or theological conversations among brethren! 6. Yet disagreement about the way to phrase an issue is not necessarily a disagreement about the issue itself, and yet with creeds, there’s no give or take possible G. Thus, in many respects, creeds have codified the “I of Cephas” and “I of Apollos” and “I of Christ” sectarianism in modern “Christendom”; they are instruments to draw lines in the sand, of division, not unity H. What shall we say to these things? IV. Contending for the Faith Without Creedalism A. We can now hopefully understand why so many in the Restoration Movement called out to affirm no creed but Christ: they perceived the divisive nature of the documents, even when they agreed in substance, and wished for Christians to find their unity in their shared confession of Jesus as the Christ B. And yet the path of creedalism is always there, and is ever tempting 1. Creeds are “easy”: everything is sharply defined; you are in or out 2. In the midst of doctrinal disputations it is easy to reach for a formula which is easily communicated and easily affirmed or rejected 3. It then becomes easy to determine association based on whether a person will affirm a particular statement or not, and to reject such a one even if the problem is more in the formulation than the substance 4. At any point one can distill various truths about God’s purposes in Christ made known in Scripture in a series of statements of affirmation 5. One could then take such statements and use them to teach; one can also take those statements and start imposing them on others as tests of fellowship 6. We do not even have to go that far: we can take the slogans of the Restoration Movement, or phrases from the arguments made in the past, and turn them into functionally creedal statements a. We can make a creed out of “no creed but Christ”! b. Seek the old paths; Bible names for Bible doctrines; speak where the Bible speaks, be silent where the Bible is silent c. “The all sufficiency of the church”; “the Kingdom is the church,” etc. d. We may find value in these statements, and ways to affirm them, but their use is not directly from Scripture, they can be taken to extremes, and what right do we have to insist on a particular type of phrasing of some slogan or argument just because people before us did so? 7. Creedalism is born out of insecurity, fear, and a desire to make more firm and dogmatic what is not made as explicit in Scripture; we do well to insist on no creed but Christ and be on guard against the dangers of creedalism C. We must also recognize the strengths behind some aspects of creedalism, and find ways to honor those needs without insisting on creeds 1. Creeds can be an effective way of instruction; we do well to find ways to communicate the Gospel and the Kingdom simply in ways easily learned and communicated to others (2 Timothy 2:2) 2. The creeds have provided some level of understanding about the nature of God in Christ: it is easy for “us” to neglect the theological and Christological issues which led to the historic creeds, and we do so at our peril 3. Heresy is a lot easier than orthodoxy on these issues; well meaning and sincere Christians can often flatten aspects of God’s revelation about Himself in an attempt to understand matters better, and unknowingly fall into an ancient heresy like modalism, Sabellianism, Arianism, Marcionism, etc. 4. We can appreciate the argumentation behind the creeds without insisting on the creeds themselves; we can teach and preach Chalcedonian compliant orthodoxy on the nature of God in Christ without insisting on the acceptance of the creeds D. We therefore must resist creedalism and insist on no creed but Christ: we confess our belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and will teach and preach the Gospel as proclaimed by the Apostles and their associates in the New Testament V. Conclusion A. We have explored the nature and history of creeds and creedalism B. Theologically we have little quarrel with the historic creeds; nevertheless, we have warranted skepticism regarding the impulse to dogmatically impose certain formulaic standards beyond what God had imposed in Christ through the Apostles C. Creeds, by their very nature, are sectarian documents, attempting to impose a litmus test D. We can teach and preach and insist upon the truth of God in Christ as made known through the testimony of the Apostles and their associates in the New Testament without writing up specific formulations to which we insist all must subscribe to be seen as faithful E. Creedalism is clean-cut, simple, easy, and tempting; no creed but Christ can get more complicated and messy; thus we must always be on guard against creedalism F. May we confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, hold fast to that confession, and make good on it in obedient faith, and obtain the resurrection of life! G. Invitation Scripture, Meditation, and Application 1: And Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). Early Christians confessed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Such is as close to a creed as we find in the New Testament. Christians found it important to declare their faith in the presence of witnesses. Christians do well to have no creed but Christ. May we put our trust in Jesus as Lord and Christ and obtain the resurrection of life! 2: Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already (1 John 4:2-3). Christians were constantly confronted by false teachers and false doctrines. It would be important to understand what they would accept as true or false. And yet the apostles did not demand a particular formulation in a creed beyond the confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Many other truths were made known about Jesus, and they should be accepted and proclaimed. Such proclamations do not require creedal formulations. May we speak of Jesus the Christ and glorify God in His name! 3: Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). Christians are to contend for the faith delivered to the saints and to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Creeds, by their very nature, are divisive and sectarian; they seek to delineate those who are “in” from those who are “out,” and are not content with resting in what God has made known in Scripture. If creeds merely restate Scripture, Scripture should be sufficient. If creeds need to explain or clarify Scripture, who can say that they have done so in such a perfect way as to insist on their formulation? The issue is less about the substance of the creeds as much as their posture and premise. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God; this should be a sufficient creed for us, as it was for Christians in the New Testament. May we pursue God in Christ and be saved! 4: Fight the good fight of the faith, lay hold on the life eternal, whereunto thou wast called, and didst confess the good confession in the sight of many witnesses (1 Timothy 6:12). The confession of Jesus as the Christ is a call to action, to obedient faith in Him. Creeds simply declare a proposition of belief. Whatever truths may be found in creeds can be ascertained from Scripture. The quality of the arguments behind the creeds may be good, but their basis only stands if they are rooted in Scripture. We can affirm as truth the substance of creeds while eschewing creedalism and the imposition of particular formulas as tests of faith and fellowship. What God has made known in Christ in the New Testament should prove sufficient for us. May we trust in Jesus and obtain the resurrection of life!