Is it possible to be non-creedal?

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Some have suggested that it's not that there's churches with creeds and churches without creeds. Rather, there are churches with written creeds and churches without written creeds. But every church has a creed. The question is whether or not it's clear and written down.

The problem with saying: "No creed but Christ" or "No creed but Scripture" is that as soon as I ask: "who is Jesus Christ?" or "what does Scripture teach?" then we're beginning to form a creed.

No?
 

Thedictator

Retired Coach, Now Missionary to the World
Mar 21, 2010
989
529
Northeast Texas
✟50,142.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Creeds are man's attempts to make his interpretation the Authority. 2 Peter 1:20 tells us there is on authority in man's interpretation of Scripture. Only God's Stated Word has Authority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedPonyDriver
Upvote 0

HeraldOfTheHolyOne

יהוה יהוה אל רחום וחנון ארך אפים ורב חסד ואמת
Dec 27, 2013
84
13
California
✟8,380.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
It is not possible to believe the Bible in a systematic way without forming creeds/confessions of faith. Thedictator's above statement is a creedal statement about the nature of creeds, which is humorously ironic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tigger45
Upvote 0

aggie03

Veritas Vos Liberabit
Jun 13, 2002
3,031
92
Columbus, TX
Visit site
✟19,529.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It is not possible to believe the Bible in a systematic way without forming creeds/confessions of faith. Thedictator's above statement is a creedal statement about the nature of creeds, which is humorously ironic.

It is possible to understand the Bible systematically, if that it is how the Bible is written to be understood. The following is the definition of a creed; we must be using the same words the same ways or we will never arrive to a common understanding:

Creed: a formal statement of Christian beliefs, especially the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed.

Is it possible to be a believer in Christ without forming a written statement of faith other than the Scriptures, yes it is. If you really want to get technical, and, by the way, leave the definition of the English word, creed comes from the Latin "credo" which means "I believe". So is it possible to believe in Jesus without believing? Obviously not. But is it possible to have faith in Christ without adhering to a writing other than the Scriptures? Yes, it is.
 
Upvote 0

Demetrius194

HolySprit+ClearConscience=Salvation
Oct 3, 2015
109
29
✟15,407.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
When the person chooses to believe that God cannot be understood, cannot be known, it is Agnosticism, "gnosis" meaning knowledge and "a" meaning absence (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic). And if the person is not credal, is it because he or she has rejected the possibility to know anything about God for certain? Or is he or she not credal because they simply have an interest to learn more about Christianity and have no clue about it is whatsoever yet? The first camp seems to be in the wrong, because it is possible to know God, else God would not have told us to seek Him, He would not have asked us to come to know Him. The second camp is just someone who will turn out something we don't yet know what. Yes, there are many denominations, many creeds, and the way to find out the truth is to use your own reasoning, and a good knowledge of Scripture, so that you have what to reason about, as well as that you don't lean in the wrong direction as a result of forgetting about a small piece of Scripture somewhere that contradicts your theory. You can even notice that it was not only once that Jesus convicted the people that reasoned with Him about their lack of knowledge of the Scripture: "how do you read", "have you not read", "you err, not knowing the Scriptures," etc. I personally sometimes pray like this: God, I believe what I believe, but if I happen to be wrong, please correct me. In your case though, maybe you could pray: God, please give me to be able to discern true crede from false, and not to fall into condemnation by perchance believing something that can put my eternal life at risk.
 
Upvote 0

aggie03

Veritas Vos Liberabit
Jun 13, 2002
3,031
92
Columbus, TX
Visit site
✟19,529.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When the person chooses to believe that God cannot be understood, cannot be known, it is Agnosticism, "gnosis" meaning knowledge and "a" meaning absence (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic). And if the person is not credal, is it because he or she has rejected the possibility to know anything about God for certain? Or is he or she not credal because they simply have an interest to learn more about Christianity and have no clue about it is whatsoever yet? The first camp seems to be in the wrong, because it is possible to know God, else God would not have told us to seek Him, He would not have asked us to come to know Him. The second camp is just someone who will turn out something we don't yet know what. Yes, there are many denominations, many creeds, and the way to find out the truth is to use your own reasoning, and a good knowledge of Scripture, so that you have what to reason about, as well as that you don't lean in the wrong direction as a result of forgetting about a small piece of Scripture somewhere that contradicts your theory. You can even notice that it was not only once that Jesus convicted the people that reasoned with Him about their lack of knowledge of the Scripture: "how do you read", "have you not read", "you err, not knowing the Scriptures," etc. I personally sometimes pray like this: God, I believe what I believe, but if I happen to be wrong, please correct me. In your case though, maybe you could pray: God, please give me to be able to discern true crede from false, and not to fall into condemnation by perchance believing something that can put my eternal life at risk.

I don't follow a creed, but I know firmly where I stand when it comes to what the Bible teaches on all "major" issues and most "minor" ones. I'm sure exactly what you mean by the "second camp" in your response. I reject written creeds as being necessary, but I'm not wandering aimlessly in search of knowledge. I believe that everything we need to know about life and godliness has been given to us in the Scriptures:

His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire."

- 2 Pet 1.3-4

I don't believe that we need creeds in addition to the Bible because the Bible already contains all of the truth we need to know. How do we deal with questions that arise and differences in understanding? We talk and study with other Christians just like the saints did in the first century.

As a side note, I've noticed that once someone has written something down, they tend to defend it more vehemently and are less willing to change their mind. That makes creeds even more dangerous; if they should contain something that isn't correct, they make it even more difficult to change our minds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sam91
Upvote 0

Demetrius194

HolySprit+ClearConscience=Salvation
Oct 3, 2015
109
29
✟15,407.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

Hello, aggie03! Thank you for reading my answer to Tree of Life's question and for replying to it. I agree with Tree of Life when he said "there are churches with written creeds and churches without written creeds. But every church has a creed". When you say "I know firmly where I stand when it comes to what the Bible teaches", I believe that's a creed. It may not be written down anywhere, but it can be, and if you do write it down and people read it, it is of course good if what's written is truth, because if it's not, and later you change, these people may never know about the change of your thoughts, and if they have believed the things they read, they may be in danger if these things are not trivial. I do think though, that written creeds have utility, they can act as a filter for the unwanted people bringing false teachings. Not all people in the worship chamber of a church building may share faith in all of what the creed statement on the wall will say, and it is hard to say whether God will give them guilt about it, or whether it will not be a cause for guilt in their conscience for at least a while, nether whether they will try to hide it, or not worry if they accidentally show it or speak it. But if the person is "caught", it may feel hard or harder (or even impossible) for them to remain, on a psychological level. So I personally will not speak against the documental kind of creeds, with which you disagree, because, as I have shown, there is godly utility in them. Yes, they can also serve to hinder the "wrong" church from receiving correction, but this is Earth, this world is imperfect, neither can it ever be, meaning that there will always be abuse and misuse of things, a hole in the system so to say, good things used unto bad ends, a pen that writes horrible things instead of good, the money that buy evil things instead of helping the needy, the medicine that both kills the overdosed and heals the sick.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Demetrius194

HolySprit+ClearConscience=Salvation
Oct 3, 2015
109
29
✟15,407.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You're changing the definition of a creed. A creed is a formal declaration of faith. Mine is the Bible, other than which there is nothing written that I adhere to. We could all drive chairs if we change the definition of the word.

"A creed (also confession, symbol, or statement of faith) is a statement of the shared beliefs of a religious community in the form of a fixed formula summarizing core tenets" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creed).

I said that when you said "I know firmly where I stand when it comes to what the Bible teaches", I believe that's a creed. Even if it is just one person, this person is not one but his spirit that is inside him is the second witness, together forming a community, just as Jesus said: "I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me", and Father was inside Jesus. In your case, there is probably more than one person who share at least some of your beliefs. I guess you just hate the idea of them being put on paper. Is it because you admit that your beliefs stand a good chance of being wrong, so as not to risk having them being successfully reproved later on, aggie03?
 
Upvote 0

aggie03

Veritas Vos Liberabit
Jun 13, 2002
3,031
92
Columbus, TX
Visit site
✟19,529.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When you say "I know firmly where I stand when it comes to what the Bible teaches", I believe that's a creed.

I decided to go through point by point and show where I have issue with what you said. First, your statement here is in direct contradiction with the definition of a creed. The fact that someone believes something in wise makes it a creed, as the English word is defined. A creed is more than something that is believed. It is a formal declaration of faith by which fellowship is determined, sustained and denied. There is a vast difference between believing something that having a creed.

It may not be written down anywhere, but you can be, and if you do and people read it, it is of course good if what's written is truth, because if it's not, and later you change, these people may never know about the change of your thoughts, and if they have believed the things they read, they may be in danger if these things are not trivial.

I'm not sure of your exact meaning here, however, Christianity is intended to be relational in nature. Christians are supposed to have relationships with one another, study with one another, reprove, rebuke exhort one another. By being in constant discussion and study with the saints in my area, we grow and come to understand the truth better together. If I learn something new, I am under obligation to teach it those I know, and they are under obligation to compare it to the Scriptures to see if it matches what God says, like the people in Berea did when they heard Paul teaching (Acts 17.11).

I do think though, that written creeds have utility, they can act as a filter for the unwanted people bringing false teachings.

The Bible already does this. Additional documents are unnecessary and only add to the problem of Biblical illiteracy that is plaguing modern society. Rather than learning what creeds and other documents teach, we ought to focus on what the Scriptures teach and use the word of God to determine fellowship.

Not all people in the worship chamber of a church building may share faith in all of what the creed statement on the wall will say, and it is hard to say whether God will give them guilt about it, or whether it will not be a cause for guilt in their conscience for at least a while, nether whether they will try to hide it, or not worry if they accidentally show it or speak it.

There is no indication in the Bible, whatsoever, that God will hold anyone accountable in any regard to a document other than the Bible. In the example that you've provided, fellowship is being determined on the basis of human wisdom rather than those things that have been delivered by the Holy Spirit.

But if the person is "caught", it may feel hard or harder (or even impossible) for them to remain, on a psychological level.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

So I personally will not speak against the documental kind of creeds, with which you disagree, because, as I have shown, there is godly utility in them.

"Documental creed" is redundant. That is part of the definition of the English word "creed". Also, I do not believe you have demonstrated that there is any utility in them, godly or otherwise. Everything that you've stated as support for creeds can already be done with the Bible. Creeds, therefore, are redundant and lack utility.

Yes, they can also serve to hinder the "wrong" church from receiving correction, but this is Earth, this world is imperfect, neither can it ever be, meaning that there will always be abuse and misuse of things, a hole in the system so to say, good things used unto bad ends, a pen that writes horrible things instead of good, the money that buy evil things instead of helping the needy, the medicine that both kills the overdosed and heals the sick.

Why complicate the matter more by adding unnecessary documents?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Demetrius194

HolySprit+ClearConscience=Salvation
Oct 3, 2015
109
29
✟15,407.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Besides, if even if a community that shares sames beliefs does not have a statement of creed, it still does, because this "statement" *is* the community itself. It's like they both, individually and as a group, are the "letter" of that statement, because it is written: "You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone". So, in essence, every spiritual community that shares beliefs has a "creed".
 
Upvote 0

aggie03

Veritas Vos Liberabit
Jun 13, 2002
3,031
92
Columbus, TX
Visit site
✟19,529.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You've taken that passage out of context and, if you desire, we can go look through the passage and talk about what it's really saying. The fact still stands that the written statement of faith for Christians is and should only be the Bible. Anything other than that is redundant and unnecessary.

"People don't agree what the Bible teaches" is a popular argument. People don't agree what the Nicene Creed teaches. As adding creeds doesn't fix the problem, they're still unnecessary.
 
Upvote 0

aggie03

Veritas Vos Liberabit
Jun 13, 2002
3,031
92
Columbus, TX
Visit site
✟19,529.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
One of us is right, or we're both wrong. If either of us lacks the desire to come to an understanding of what the Scriptures teach, then that's sinful. You don't need to change my opinion, but you need to be able to prove from the Scriptures that creeds, written documents formally outlining and defining faith, apart from the Bible are good and necessary. If you can show me from the Scriptures where these things are acceptable, then you won't be changing my opinion, but God will be telling us what is acceptable. Human opinion counts for nothing; divine declaration counts for everything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LostMarbels
Upvote 0

Demetrius194

HolySprit+ClearConscience=Salvation
Oct 3, 2015
109
29
✟15,407.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
One of us is right, or we're both wrong. If either of us lacks the desire to come to an understanding of what the Scriptures teach, then that's sinful. You don't need to change my opinion, but you need to be able to prove from the Scriptures that creeds, written documents formally outlining and defining faith, apart from the Bible are good and necessary. If you can show me from the Scriptures where these things are acceptable, then you won't be changing my opinion, but God will be telling us what is acceptable. Human opinion counts for nothing; divine declaration counts for everything.
I think you have a good point, but if you will not be careful with accusations and sharp comments, I will not have a desire to have an argument. I'm sorry if that bothers you, but it is my choice, and I'm not going to judge myself about it in any way, now or in the future.

It is hard for me to give an example from the Bible I have not already given, you seeming to require a more literal and strong support of my assertion that creeds are good. I must also add that I do not really wish to argue with you all that much about it at all, having a feeling that in all probability I will not be able to convince you. So, just telling you in advance, I reserve a right to not reply to you.

I must say that my support for creeds does not so much stem from my support for them in general, but rather it was more of a way to express to this thread's author my concern about what have seemed to me at the time a leaning he may have had, towards an agnostic faith, it just seemed to me to be so, don't ask why. And my response was more as a warning, to warn that it *is* possible to know God for certain. And that's what creeds provide, they seek to provide that sense of certainty, the "if nothing is right, then at least this is, except for the Bible itself". Scripture is not as obvious sometimes, and it sometimes takes extra to be able to pull out its meaning out of it. This can lead to many heresies. Just look at the number of denominations around, I mean not all uphold the truth (like Jehovah Witnesses, for example believe that Jesus is the archangel Michael who came in flesh, not the Living Word of the Trinity that became flesh), and most err at least in part. If a document like that reflects truth, then why not consider it useful? It will not be the Bible, but it will be a true prophecy, something that can be used, like a spiritual letter from a true man of God, of whom God Himself has testified by means of some approvable way that his teachings are of God, for instance? Who would not at least consider such a letter, to seek to compare it to own beliefs?

I will say this: the Scripture itself, which you say you uphold so dearly, tells us to test the spirits if they are of God, namely whether they positively respond to the question "has Jesus Christ come in flesh?" (1 John 4:2). And take Nicene creed, for example, it does state that the Living Word of Trinity had incarnated. How much more of a proof you need that this creed is of God?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MerriestHouse

Active Member
Supporter
Feb 3, 2016
157
29
Kentucky
✟45,452.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Some have suggested that it's not that there's churches with creeds and churches without creeds. Rather, there are churches with written creeds and churches without written creeds. But every church has a creed. The question is whether or not it's clear and written down.

The problem with saying: "No creed but Christ" or "No creed but Scripture" is that as soon as I ask: "who is Jesus Christ?" or "what does Scripture teach?" then we're beginning to form a creed.

No?

A creed is a way of life of a believer. It is what they live by. The early disciples way of life was "Jesus is Lord." "If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10

What else did they have to believe?
 
Upvote 0

Demetrius194

HolySprit+ClearConscience=Salvation
Oct 3, 2015
109
29
✟15,407.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I think the author of this thread in essence had asked two questions: the first one is whether we agree that though a church may not hold to any specific written creed, it would still have a creed, and the second question is whether we think that it is possible to be non-creedal in the sense of denying adherence to any specific creed. I think these two questions are different.

Regarding the second question I would say that if a person confesses to not adhere to any specific creed, this person's beliefs may still match the beliefs of some creed out there, it is just that the person may not be aware of it. Yet if a person is aware of a creed that, lets assume just for the sake of argument, has points that match reality perfectly, and still chooses to say that he or she is non-creedal, then I think it could constitute a denial of the points of that creed in full or in part, which would then poses a possible risk to his spiritual walk. To uphold a creed, I believe is the same as to simply agree with it. I don't understand why would someone choose to say "I'm not going to uphold as true what the person A said in a certain letter, though I do believe that what's written in that letter is complete truth". This logic seems to just deny itself. Most likely this person just doesn't agree with it to some extent, and because he or she have not yet found a creed he or she completely supports as true, he or she would say that she is non-creedal, in the sense that there is no creed out there that perfectly matches his or her beliefs. That's fair, but that also indicates that the person may be Scripturally wrong, if he or she did study a creed that was true in objectivity, but which subjectively appeared to them to be at least partially false.

Answering a comment of aggie03, namely about her thinking that creeds do not have sufficient utility, I would like to remind her of the very reason the council of Nicea was gathered. It was to deal with a rising heresy among Christian folk, namely Arianism. If action was not taken to recommend Nicene creed as authoritative, with punishment of execution attached to disobedience, the heresy would ensure that many Christians folks could have their salvation jeopardised. Right now there are so many heresies, it is hard to count them all, but a creed of this early time is definitely a light to those who seek to not stray into one of so many false spirits. It is a measuring line that was set by the ancients of the day, and it should not be moved. How do we know it is true? It is a hard question. It is almost a matter of luck to come to believe in truth in general, as Christ did say that not to all it is given to believe in truth. But the fact of it being a result of a large consensus of most churches of the time at least attracts our attention to it, who then go and study it. It is like a bright beaming light out there that's hard not to notice, because of how much hassle its creation was accompanied by in the day, and I do believe it's good that it exists--it exists, again, to allow those few who will believe in truth, to see it before their eyes, which they may never have had an opportunity to if it wasn't there, and they would be left to their own devices to try to understand the Bible from scratch, which increases the risk of getting things wrong dramatically, at least judging by the sheer number of false Christian sects around. I personally have had trouble with parts of it, until I understood every part, and now agree with every part of it (in fact it was just today that I fully agreed with it, thanks be to God, the author of this thread, and my conversation partner aggie03).

I do not believe that Nicene creed or most any creed out there would reflect every truth of the Bible, instead, the creeds, I think, are usually just a way to preserve doctrinal purity of a certain group of believers from being tainted by teachings they deem false. But as I said earlier, everything can be both used unto good, and unto evil. So some false creeds would indeed only serve to lock its believers into shackles of heresy, while blessing others with truth. It's just the way of things though--everything in this world can be used both unto evil, and unto good, except for the living and breathing Spirit, I guess, who I don't believe can be manipulated like that (I am not referring to the written letter of the Word now, but rather the living Spirit of God).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LostMarbels

All-Lives-Matter
Jun 18, 2011
11,954
3,864
48
Orlando Fl
✟173,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I will say this: the Scripture itself, which you say you uphold so dearly, tells us to test the spirits if they are of God, namely whether they positively respond to the question "has Jesus Christ come in flesh?" (1 John 4:2). And take Nicene creed, for example, it does state that the Living Word of Trinity had incarnated. How much more of a proof you need that this creed is of God?

I do confess Jesus Christ as the word of God made flesh the dwelt amongst man. I also confess Jesus as Lord, Savior, and the one true God. That being said... most creeds are written with a denominational slant.

Nicene Creed
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Ok... so I do not see the holy spirit as 'lord' nor 'the giver of life'. I do not hold faith to the apostolic catholic church, and I do not hold to the belief of salvation from baptism. No wet babies for me. I agree with the dedication of a child to God by it's parents, but not salvation by baptism. I also have aways had a problem with "for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary". So just because he was incarnated in the womb of Mary we are saved? See what I mean?

I see creeds as an extension of one's religious belief, denominational ideology, and wholly unnecessary. The bible has what I need. Jesus Christ is God, the word of God made flesh, and my savior. Nothing more that that needs to be stated to understand my faith.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anna ~ grace
Upvote 0

LostMarbels

All-Lives-Matter
Jun 18, 2011
11,954
3,864
48
Orlando Fl
✟173,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Scripture is not as obvious sometimes, and it sometimes takes extra to be able to pull out its meaning out of it. This can lead to many heresies. Just look at the number of denominations around, I mean not all uphold the truth (like Jehovah Witnesses, for example believe that Jesus is the archangel Michael who came in flesh, not the Living Word of the Trinity that became flesh), and most err at least in part.

The word of God has no flaw. You need to interpret it by the holy spirit. If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

Ask in faith and the Bible become completely clear. However a man can only write a creed based upon his own understanding.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Demetrius194

HolySprit+ClearConscience=Salvation
Oct 3, 2015
109
29
✟15,407.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

I think it could be like this: every church that's of God still has some error, and you are an example to that with your denial of truth about the Holy Spirit and other things. By "church that's of God" I mean one of the symbolic seven churches of Revelation, each of which has an angel, to each of whom Jesus writes an individual message. And as you can read in these messages, each church has something to be reproved of.

There are also churches that are not a part of these seven symbolic churches. An example is JW church, as I mentioned earlier, 1 John 4:2 being the deciding factor.

This is what seems to me to be the case.
 
Upvote 0