The Christian Creeds
An Introduction
RHYNE R. PUTMAN · JULY 7, 2021 · VOLUME 11, ISSUE 2

From the very beginning, creeds and creedal formulations have played a crucial role in the beliefs and practices of Christian churches. Some Christians (usually in free church traditions) deny the creeds any authority in teaching or value in worship. But this rejection of tradition usually stems from a misunderstanding of the function of the creeds and the classical Protestant understanding of sola Scriptura. Creeds have no independent “authority” on their own, but they are “authoritative” or normative to the degree that they faithfully represent what Scripture teaches.[1] As faithful interpretations of Scripture, creeds can be a tremendous asset to us today.
​
Creeds are in the BibleThe creeds may have been formulated centuries after the last books of the Bible were written, but there are numerous models for creedal formulations within Scripture. Consider the numerous passages in Scripture that summarize and profess the faith of Israel and the early church in creedal forms. The Shema (Deut. 6:4–5) was a simple, concise profession of Israel’s faith: “Listen, Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.”[2] This pronouncement declared the uniqueness of Israel’s God and the mandate of his people. The psalter contains liturgical formulas like “his faithful love endures forever” (Ps. 100:5; 106:1; 118:1–29; Ps. 136:1–26) which helped ingrain Israel’s faith into the hearts of their hearers. New Testament epistles contain early hymns to Christ that served an important liturgical function in the early church (Phil. 2:6–11; Col. 1:15–20; 1 Tim. 3:16).[3] Given these biblical precedents, it should not surprise us that the early church replicated this pattern in her own expressions of faith and worship.

So, if we think about the Trinity in mathematical terms, we do not need to say “three” (as if the persons are individual beings of a divine species). We can always say the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God. However, if we do not say that God is “one,” then we would be saying little more than polytheists say about their deities.[19] In order to count to the true and Triune God, the essential number is one.

The Divided Community of EFS
While EFS advocates undeniably affirm the exclusive unity of God, their modern revision of the Trinity endangers it. Theology requires, as Sinclair Ferguson has written, that we “point out the logical implications of presuppositions.”[20] EFS logically entails the division of our simple God in more than one way, ignoring Calvin’s warning not to “think God’s simple essence to be torn into three persons.”[21]

First, God’s indivisible unity means that whatever we say of God’s nature is equally true of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that includes His will and authority.[22] By His will and power, Scripture identifies God as God, “I am God, and there is no one like me… My purpose shall stand” (Isa 46:9-10). So, each Person exercises that divine will inseparably from the other two as God.[23] The Son sovereignly “chooses” inseparably from the Father’s “will” (Matt 11:26-27; cf. Jn 5:19-21), while the Holy Spirit works as “he wills” (1 Cor 12:11), which is inseparable from how “God [the Father]… chose” (v. 18; cf. v. 6).[24] Christians have “overwhelmingly affirmed a singular mind and will in God,”[25] for the “divine will is thus the being of God Himself.”[26] John of Damascus said that the Trinity is:

one essence, one divinity, one power, one will, one energy, one beginning, one authority, one dominion, one sovereignty, made known in three perfect subsistences and adored with one adoration.[27]

And John Owen said the same: “acting all by the same will, the same wisdom, the same power. Every person, therefore, is the author of every work of God, and the divine nature is the same undivided principle of all divine operations.”[28]
​
Yet, EFS assumes the Father and Son each have their own wills in a tiered structure of authority. This attributes will to the persons rather than the simple divine nature.[29] However, anyone familiar with debates over the freedom and bondage of man’s will already know that will is a faculty of nature – that is why we argue that the unregenerate are not without wills, but they are bound to their fallen nature, apart from sovereign grace.[30] “There is no safe ‘functional’ subordination,” because it excludes the Son and Spirit from the greater will and power of the Father, functionally denying their equality as God.[31] Herman Witsius (1636-1708) correctly reasoned, “If any person were possessed of greater excellence and dignity than the Son or the Holy Spirit, neither of these persons could be the Most High God.”[32] This imperils other divine attributes as well. EFS entails a gap between the Father’s command and the Son’s obedience which negates eternality. If this were the case, then the Son would have need of learning the Father’s will, which requires He has some ignorance, denying omniscience.[33] How can any of this be true of the three who are one and, therefore, “the same in Deity, Dignity, Eternity, Operation, and Will”?[34] By reducing the unity of will in the Trinity to a cooperative agreement, like a successful divine team, EFS effectively denies simplicity and mimics the reasoning of Monarchians in the past.[35]

Christians will defend the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection and yet still miss its theological centrality. Machen reminds us in Christianity & Liberalism that the acts of redemptive history and their meaning are “always combined in the Christian message.”[1] According to eyewitness testimony, Jesus rose again from the dead and by it He “was declared to be the Son of God in power” (Rom 1:4). So the resurrection is not only a fact of history, but, as John Knox said, it is “the chief article of our faith”[2] and therefore our life in the local church.
When (and Why) We WorshipThe Gospels are rather sparing on chronological detail, but they take pains to point out that Christ rose on the first day of the week (Matt 28:1; Mark 16:1-2; Luke 24:1, 36; John 20:1, 19, 26). So the church has always gathered on the first day (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2), “the Lord’s Day” (Rev 1:10). In the language of the early church, it is the “day of the resurrection.”[3] Memorably, B.B. Warfield declared,
Christ took the Sabbath into the grave with him and brought the Lord’s Day out of the grave with him on the resurrection morn.[4]
For too many Christians, why and when the church meets are open questions. Answers are found in this central article of the faith: on the first day of the week, Jesus rose again. We gather weekly on the Lord’s Day because we only come to God through our risen Lord Jesus.
​

Thanks to Crossway’s recent publication of Jonathan Gibson’s excellent resource, Be Thou My Vision: A Liturgy for Daily Worship, I have, since the beginning of this year, been immersed in the creeds on a daily basis. Each morning, as a part of the daily liturgy in this resource, readers privately confess their belief in the Christian God by reading either the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed, or the Athanasius Creed. Engaging in this practice was a refreshing novelty for the first couple of weeks—when unfamiliarity was still a feature and certain words or phrases struck me as surprising—but doing so daily for seven months, this practice has turned into something much deeper and richer. Now, I am beginning to notice not so much certain elements about the creed, but rather, I notice certain elements of myself—ways that I have been shaped by the habit of confessing the creeds daily.
The Creeds and the Formation of Theological ImaginationFirst, reading the creeds daily has impacted the way I think about, and pray to, God. Increasingly, when I think of what it means to worship God, I think of worshipping the “one God in Trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confounding their Person nor dividing their essence.”[1] When I pray to my Father in heaven, I am aware of the fact that I am praying to the “Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible,” of whom the “only begotten Son of God” is “begotten… before all the worlds,” and from whom (with the Son) the Holy Spirit—“the Lord and Giver of Life”—proceeds.[2] When I think of Christ, I am amazed by the one who is “God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father.”[3] Consequently, it is unthinkable that I should ever imagine any kind of hierarchy in this simple, single, godhead, since “none in this Trinity is before or after, none-is greater or smaller; in their entirety, the three persons are coeternal and coequal with each other.”[4]Reading the creeds daily has impacted the way I think about, and pray to, God.CLICK TO TWEET
This has done wonders for my life of worship. To contemplate this almighty, transcendent, eternal, omnipotent God is to comprehend and worship “the unity in Trinity and the Trinity in unity.”[5] I find myself positively delighting in the Spirit’s designation of “Giver of Life,” and find no difficulty at all with worshipping and glorifying him together with the Father and the Son.[6] I find myself awestruck by the Trinity’s being “immeasurable” and “uncreated” and “one” and “eternal” and “almighty,” with my heart resounding in agreement and full desire to “confess each person individually as both God and Lord,” and embracing with full appreciation that “catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.”[7] Indeed, I feel as if I am getting a better grasp at what Dante describes in his final canto of Paradiso when he writes,

May 1, 2024 by Chris P
Category: Uncategorized
For this month’s book review, we are stepping back into the early 1800s to dust off a little book written by Octavius Winslow. Winslow was born in England and ministered as a contemporary of Charles Spurgeon and J.C. Ryle. He is noted for his high view of God, yet desire to flesh out the power of Christ’s supremacy in the believer’s daily life.

Someone shared this with me from a missions trip they were on and I thought I would share it here. It is using your fingers to share the gospel. 

Start with pinky and middle finger up. Which one is bigger? The middle one. God is big. He is large and in charge (hands up in field goal position and then in muscle position). He is the creator of everyone and everything. He is just and righteous and holy and loving and good and much more.

The pinky finger reminds us of us. We are small. We resemble God in that we are created in His image. God created everything good including man, but
(Raise finger in between the pinky and middle) sin came between us. Rom 3:10, 23 there are none righteous no not one, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. As the New England Primer said “in Adam’s fall we sinned all”. Adam was our representative and he failed. We are all guilty before God. The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23).

God had a plan and sent His Son (raise index finger) to accomplish that plan. But God demonstrated His love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us (Rom 5:8). He died in our place, satisfying God’s just wrath against sin. He died for the ungodly (Rom 4:5; 5:6). The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom 6:23). We have a better Adam, a better representative. Rom 5:18 – therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. Jesus not only forgives us for our sin, but provides for us in His life of perfect obedience, fulfilling the law, the righteousness we need to stand before a just God. Jesus did everything we need. Paul tells us that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved (Rom 10:9). If you come to Christ in faith you can be good with God (give thumbs up). That is our greatest need, to be right with God. Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (Rom 10:13).

The gospel really is good news. It is not good news for those who think they are righteous. It is good news for sinners. Lawbreakers. The unrighteous. To be righteous is to be a law keeper. When we receive Christ we are clothed with His righteousness, so when the Father looks at us, He sees us as He sees His Son with whom He is well-pleased. This is good news for sinners and it is good news for those who already believe as well. The better we understand the grace of God the more we are motivated from gratitude to live in a way that is pleasing to Him.

Let me put it this way. You have heard of the great exchange? Our sin goes to Christ and He deals with it on the cross and His righteousness is given to us. Forgiveness gets us back to zero. God doesn’t require a zero. He requires perfect righteousness. It is a righteousness He gives to us. He provides the righteousness He requires in His Son.  (2 Cor 5:21). It is a verdict from a judge that can never be changed. God doesn’t say "man he sure sins more than I thought" or "she sure sins big, I might have to change my mind or take back my verdict". No, God is not fickle. He is the righteous Judge and what He declares goes. We can live the Christian life with confidence, not in fear, not presuming on grace, but motivated by His grace to live holy lives as His good law directs us. 

Consider with me for a moment Paul's words in 2 Corinthians 6:4: “As sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, yet possessing everything” (6:10).
​
How is it possible to be characterized by both sorrow and joy; having nothing, yet possessing everything? At first glance, they do seem to be contradictory or at the least, strange bed-fellows. At second glance, we recognize the harm it would be to experience a life of joy with no sorrow, or on the other hand, sorrow with no joy.

Imagine the danger of experiencing a drowning sorrow that knows no joy or the alternative - a triumphal joy that knows no sorrow. Would not a pure unmitigated sorrow be characterized of hell? And wouldn't a pure, undiluted joyful bliss be characterized of heaven?

Neither an unmixed joy nor an unmixed sorrow would be in touch with reality, which is our situation on earth. Neither mental states would reflect a healthy mindset. For as long as we live on this earth, in this temporal plane, sorrow and joy are mixed in our experiences. For this old-creation world participates in both the common curse as a result of the fall, and common grace as a result of God's Noahic covenant to preserve the world for the redemption of Christ.

And yet, all humankind participates in both common curse and common grace, thus experiencing mixed joy and sorrow, while awaiting the return of Christ who will indeed redeem and judge separating a new-creation heaven (and new earth) filled with joy from the old-creation hell filled with sorrow. But that's not really our topic for the moment. We are considering the mixed sorrow and joy of the believer-in-Jesus as a motivation for serving Christ today. 

​Omaha Bible Church: Omaha, NE > The Christian Ethic of Joy and Suffering

​Christians will defend the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection and yet still miss its theological centrality. Machen reminds us in Christianity & Liberalism that the acts of redemptive history and their meaning are “always combined in the Christian message.”[1] According to eyewitness testimony, Jesus rose again from the dead and by it He “was declared to be the Son of God in power” (Rom 1:4). So the resurrection is not only a fact of history, but, as John Knox said, it is “the chief article of our faith”[2] and therefore our life in the local church.

When (and Why) We WorshipThe Gospels are rather sparing on chronological detail, but they take pains to point out that Christ rose on the first day of the week (Matt 28:1; Mark 16:1-2; Luke 24:1, 36; John 20:1, 19, 26). So the church has always gathered on the first day (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2), “the Lord’s Day” (Rev 1:10). In the language of the early church, it is the “day of the resurrection.”[3] Memorably, B.B. Warfield declared,
Christ took the Sabbath into the grave with him and brought the Lord’s Day out of the grave with him on the resurrection morn.[4]
​
For too many Christians, why and when the church meets are open questions. Answers are found in this central article of the faith: on the first day of the week, Jesus rose again. We gather weekly on the Lord’s Day because we only come to God through our risen Lord Jesus.

The Biblical Rationale of Creeds
​
A creed is a statement of faith; a codified and summarized list of essential markers of belief. Creeds are an irreducible feature of the regula fidei (the rule of faith), which constitutes established boundary markers of orthodoxy. Creeds are an irreducible feature of the regula fidei (the rule of faith), which constitutes established boundary markers of orthodoxy.CLICK TO TWEETWhen Jude speaks of “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), that word “faith” describes a body of doctrines handed to the faith. It had edges and definitions—by describing the faith was for all delivered to the saints, Jude was demarcating the fact that there is an “in” and an “out” of orthodox Christian belief. Apostacy and heresy are unintelligible concepts apart from the regula fidei.
When the Bible speaks of apostasy and people swerving from the truth and departing from the faith (e.g., 2 Timothy 3:1-8), it positively requires the regula fidei and, at the very least, tacitly endorses something like a creed. How can the church hope to continually hand down the “faith once for all delivered to the saints” if that faith is not summarized and codified in an essential way? Heretics always claim to be faithful Christians, and they always work with the very same data of revelation—they use the same scriptural prooftexts as the orthodox when they argue their case, but they interpret them in a manner that does not accord with “the faith once for all delivered to the saints.” So, are we to reinvent the wheel for every generational departure from sound interpretation of Scripture, or might we use a creedal litmus test to demarcate which proposed doctrines are orthodox and which are not?