If some folks don’t want to consider the creeds important or lacking in authority, that is a conclusion that can be easily reached if one rejects post-apostolic developments. However, to be consistent, I think they should stop insisting that books like Revelation, Hebrews and James, etc. be considered as inspired and books like the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas, etc. be rejected. I see nothing in my Scripture or history to indicate that the formation process for the canon was any less inspired than the creeds. If the creed can be questioned, then the canon should be questioned as well. If after questioning, if we can’t determine the canon conclusively based on pre-creedal information, then we shouldn’t insist that those books and only those books are inspired. Why would God limit himself to using the books we have in the NT as inspired Scripture based on the decisions of a bunch of male bishops who lived hundreds of years after they apostles all died? I’m just arguing for consistency is all.

MB

The apostles creed predates Constantine by 100 years. If there are any politics embedded in it, they are the politics of a religion fighting for its survival amid the challenges of heresy on the one hand and official Roman persecution on the other. To appeal to Constantine to dismiss the Apostles Creed is like appealing to Teddy Roosevelt’s abuses of US power in Panama to dismiss the Declaration of Independence as evidence of the politics of US hegemony and abuse of power. I’m afraid that if you want to dismiss the Apostles’ Creed, you will need to at least find a reason that is contemporary to its development.

MB

I apologize for attacking creeds in the way it would appear I have. I get lost in rhetoric sometimes and do not say what is my heart. Clearly we are approaching the same topic from viewpoints that would seem unreconcilable.

What ties us together is not an intellectual exercise. So I regret attempting to spar with words in emotional summaries and in so doing tearing at the fabric of what joins us, Jesus.

Would I know this without the canon? Only to the degree the Father had managed to reveal Himself in other ways according to His discretion. That He could do so is clear to me. That He chose the written words He did and caused them to be in our hands is a wonder to me.

In the power of those words is life.

You asked what I think one must one do to be saved?

That’s a big question that can’t fully be addressed here, but I’ll start off with several things that the apostles told us to do.

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Repent and be baptized.
Persevere until the end.
Be patient in well-doing.
Seek for glory and honor and immortality.
Work it out with fear and trembling (highly recommended, if not required).
Walk in the light
Keep His word.
Love your brother.
Don’t love the world.
Confess your sins.
Don’t commit sin.

What do all of these things entail, though? What does believing in Jesus entail? Was Jesus crucified, buried and raised? What for? Also, some of these seem a bit contradictory, even when taken from the same book (e.g., I John). However, that’s the way they are in the original text, so I’ll just quote the Word, brother. There’s obviously explanation that goes with all of these. Creeds help with that.

You also asked, what did people did before the creeds? That is the same as asking what they did before the contents of the Scriptures were established. The creeds were formulated to combat heresy and to distinguish real Christian theology from heretical theology. Creeds are the Churches way of dealing with heresy. This was evident as early as Acts 15, when the apostles stepped in and decided on a matter for which Jesus had left no explicit instructions. They did so, with the claim that it was both their decision and that of the Holy Spirit. Nowhere in the NT does one find the claim that such authority would die when they did, so why do you seem to believe that it did? Furthermore, if you look at the writings of the people who lived back in the early days of Christianity, it is obvious that they looked to the apostles and their successors to keep the ship aright. How would you know, if you lived back in the 100’s, whether the gospel of Judas, the gospel of Matthias, the Acts of Peter or the Acts of Thomas were legit? They all claimed apostolic authorship and many had the support of charismatic individuals like Marcion.

To attack the creeds and creedal-like baptismal statements of faith not included verbatim in Scripture is to attack a very foundational aspect of church teaching and functioning over 100 years before Constantine came on the scene and 200 years before the canon was set. If the church was that screwed up before the canon was set, how can one be sure that the right movements were included in the final score?

I have listed several sources for the historical fact that the creeds influenced the canon, and that position is nearly universal among scholars of all types from agnostics to evangelicals to orthodox to Lutheran and old line Protestants to Catholics. At the same time, I’m not about to defend how it is phrased in every case, especially where I disagree with how it is put (e.g., Ken Collins). Is there any reputable scholar that you would refer to who thinks the creeds had no influence on the canon?

If we can’t be sure of the creeds, then we can’t be sure of the canon. If we can’t be sure of the canon, then the foundation of our faith is sand.

MB

Did Constantine embrace Christ because of His call to self-denial? Or did Constantine give any evidence of concern for the poor? That he formed an alliance with a hierarchial elite and that both sides profited from their collaboration looks like “politics” to me and very little like repentance of sins from conviction and humility before a holy God.

From the priesthood’s perspective, silencing a wayward theology by a creed which rested on the authority of the emperor was efficient. No let-the Truth-stand-and-draw-men-to-Himself, which requires someone to live that Truth personally. Simply command the creed be recited at every mass and there you have it…truth is preserved. Granted there may have been a little diversion from the words of Scripture like the use of that term “trinity”, but most of the faithful didn’t read anyway. What harm does it honestly do to add a bit to the Word of God when the essence of the truth revealed therein is alluded to?

Why would a person think that the blessing of Constantine on the writing of the Apostle’s Creed would come without a political price? Do the words of the Apostle’s Creed indicate these political aims? Not directly. Did Constantine and a state-sanctioned church profit by this companionship? Most definitely. Does our Lord ever compromise Himself through alliance with hubris of the first order because it means more heads in a worship service?

Bold are these words? Only in the fact that they are written against traditional religion. Swimming against multitudes across centuries may seem bold but it is not. In the view of many folks, this is simply calling a spade a spade. Even if that spade has a few good words written on it, it is not holy in and of itself. The Apostle’s Creed is an event in history. It is no more special than the Gettysburg address or the Bill of Rights. Significant at the time and carrying lasting impact in the world. Eternal and God-breathed like the Scriptures? Not in this witness’s view.

ded,

That’s a pretty bold claim. Mind explaining how the Apostles’ Creed embedded the man-centered political goals of the early church and what those were?

MB

Great job, brother, and if for whatever reason you mind me giving you that front-page exposure, I’ll delete it on your command. But I hope you’ll not mind because what you wrote needs to be visible.

You and ded (among others) are both blessings to me in the depth of your comments and insights.