Somebody wrote me privately, expressing being mystified from my not finding the creeds of Christendom, such as the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed, to be too important. I guess my willingness to deviate from these creeds might be somewhat surprising to some. I am choosing to address this subject in this forum because it relates to truth and our communication to one another regarding truth and the standards of authority we use for determining what is true and what is not.
I consider creeds of any kind to be immature stepping stones on the path to truth. They most likely will fail at some point when knowledge is increased and greater understanding exists. Therefore, I do not hold creeds such as the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed to be authoritative. Rather, they are an effort to establish a truth that is really not yet apprehended by all. The truth being established might be known to some but hidden from others. Nevertheless, creeds often represent a compromise between conflict; therefore, they ought not be trusted as standards of truth. They are, at best, a picture into the consensus of a group of people at one particular moment in time. For the most part, I consider a creed the same way I do a working hypothesis or theory in the realm of science. It is a tentative conclusion that is subject to change. We do not establish creeds for things that we know with certainty to be true. Who has ever heard of a creed that establishes that 2+2=4 or that a triangle has three sides, the hypotenuse of which equals the sum of the squares of the two remaining sides? We don't mindlessly quote creeds every week that says, what goes up must come down due to the force of gravity, or that the sky is blue, or that the earth rotates around the sun, etc. In other words, truth that is known to be true never has any need for a creed in order to establish them. From this observation, we must conclude that creeds are an immature way of forcing the realization of an idea upon others. Basically, I hold Scripture and reasoning to be something that trumps creeds. If Scripture and reasoning goes against a creed, I will consider that to be a higher authority than the creed. The creed only holds historical value of what people believed at the time, or of what people who continue to embrace the creed believe. But the creed really has no authority for me in regards to what is true. This does not mean that it carries no weight at all. The weight it carries, however, is primarily that it is the witness of truth given by a large group of people. That large group of people, however, might be wrong. It is very possible that their lack of knowledge and understanding is what caused them to embrace the creed in the first place. One thing I am certain of, and that is that when someone truly apprehends and knows a particular truth, he has no need for any creed to declare it. At best, creeds give security to the insecure, and that insecurity is the result of lack of knowledge and understanding. Therefore, creeds are immature philosophical steps on the path to truth. They do not represent the actual apprehension of truth, but only the hopeful expectation of what might be found once that truth is fully apprehended. We should not fear deviating from creeds. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
