What role do creeds and confessions play alongside Scripture?
Question 1036
Walk into almost any church and you will find some statement of faith, whether ancient creeds recited in liturgy or modern doctrinal statements printed in the back of a hymnal. Christians have been summarising their beliefs since the earliest days of the faith. But where do these creeds and confessions fit alongside Scripture itself? Are they helpful guides or dangerous additions? This question matters enormously for how we approach church life, teaching, and our own understanding of biblical truth.
The Biblical Foundation for Summaries of Faith
Scripture itself contains what appear to be early creedal statements. Paul writes to Timothy: “Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory” (1 Timothy 3:16). This rhythmic, structured statement has all the hallmarks of an early Christian confession, possibly sung or recited in worship. Similarly, Paul reminds the Corinthians of what he “received” and “delivered” to them: “that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). This is creedal language, a summary of essential gospel truths passed down from believer to believer.
The command to maintain sound doctrine runs throughout the New Testament. Paul tells Timothy to “follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me” (2 Timothy 1:13) and to guard “the good deposit entrusted to you” (2 Timothy 1:14). The Greek word for “pattern” here is ὑποτύπωσις (hypotypōsis), meaning an outline or sketch. Paul expected Timothy to have a clear summary of apostolic teaching that he could hold to and pass on. Jude urges believers to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). There is a definable body of teaching, “the faith,” that can be identified, summarised, and defended.
The Historical Development of Creeds
The earliest post-apostolic creeds emerged from baptismal practice. When someone came to faith in Jesus, they needed to confess what they believed before being baptised. The simple confession “Jesus is Lord” (Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 12:3) expanded over time into more detailed statements as false teaching arose and needed to be countered. The Old Roman Creed, an ancestor of the Apostles’ Creed, dates from the second century and follows a Trinitarian structure based on the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19.
The great ecumenical creeds arose in response to specific heresies. The Nicene Creed (AD 325, expanded at Constantinople in AD 381) was forged in the fires of the Arian controversy, when some were teaching that Jesus was a created being rather than fully God. The creed’s careful language about Jesus being “of one substance” (ὁμοούσιος, homoousios) with the Father drew lines that excluded Arianism whilst remaining faithful to biblical teaching. The Chalcedonian Definition (AD 451) clarified that Jesus is one person with two natures, fully God and fully man, against those who confused or separated His divine and human natures.
Later confessions arose during and after the Reformation. Documents like the Westminster Confession (1646), the London Baptist Confession (1689), and the Thirty-Nine Articles (1563) sought to articulate Protestant convictions on salvation, Scripture, the church, and more. These were not meant to replace Scripture but to summarise what their authors believed Scripture taught on these matters.
The Proper Relationship: Scripture as Supreme
Here is where we must be absolutely clear. Creeds and confessions are never on the same level as Scripture. The Bible alone is θεόπνευστος (theopneustos), “breathed out by God” (2 Timothy 3:16). Scripture alone is infallible and inerrant. Creeds are human documents, helpful but fallible, always subject to correction by Scripture itself.
The Reformers captured this with the phrase sola Scriptura, Scripture alone. This did not mean they rejected all creeds or traditions, but that Scripture held the position of final authority. The Westminster Confession itself states: “The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined… can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture” (WCF 1.10). A creed that contradicts Scripture must be rejected or revised. Scripture judges creeds; creeds do not judge Scripture.
Think of creeds like a map and Scripture like the actual territory. A good map helps you navigate unfamiliar terrain, but if the map contradicts what you see on the ground, you trust the ground, not the map. If a creed says one thing and Scripture clearly says another, Scripture wins every time. This is what it means to be a Biblicist.
The Legitimate Uses of Creeds and Confessions
When kept in their proper place, creeds serve several valuable purposes. First, they provide a summary of biblical teaching. Not everyone can read the entire Bible before being baptised. A creed gives new believers a framework for understanding the essentials of the faith. It answers the question: what must I believe to be a Christian?
Second, creeds protect against error. Heresies are rarely new; they tend to recycle themselves in different packaging. The ancient creeds identify where the boundaries lie. When someone today denies the Trinity or the full deity of Jesus, they are not being creative or progressive; they are repeating errors the church identified and rejected centuries ago. The creeds serve as warning signs: this path has been tried before and leads away from biblical truth.
Third, creeds connect us to the church throughout history. We are not the first generation to read Scripture. Believers have wrestled with these texts for two thousand years. Their summaries of biblical teaching remind us that we stand in a long line of faithful witnesses. There is humility in recognising that the Holy Spirit has been at work in the church before we arrived.
Fourth, confessions clarify what a particular church believes. When you visit a church with a published confession, you know where they stand before you walk through the door. This promotes honesty and helps believers find fellowship with those who share their convictions on important matters.
The Dangers of Creedalism
Yet creeds can become problematic when elevated beyond their proper role. Some traditions treat their confessions as virtually infallible, making subscription to every detail a test of orthodoxy. This crosses a line. A confession should summarise Scripture, not supplement it or bind the conscience on matters where Scripture allows liberty.
There is also the danger of reading Scripture through the lens of a creed rather than the other way around. When we approach a passage asking “how does this fit my confession?” rather than “what does this text actually say?”, we have got things backwards. The Bereans were commended because they “examined the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so” (Acts 17:11). They tested Paul’s teaching against Scripture, not against a predetermined creedal framework.
Another concern is that creeds can calcify theological reflection. If a confession is treated as the final word, there is no room for fresh study of Scripture to refine or correct our understanding. The Reformation itself happened because men went back to Scripture and found that medieval church teaching had drifted from biblical truth. A creed that prevents such correction has become an obstacle rather than an aid.
A Balanced Approach
So what is the right way to use creeds and confessions? We should value them as helpful summaries of biblical teaching whilst remembering they are not inspired Scripture. We should use them as teaching tools, particularly for new believers who need a framework for understanding the faith. We should appreciate them as fences that mark out the boundaries of orthodoxy, protecting against errors that have plagued the church before.
But we must always hold them loosely compared to Scripture itself. When we study the Bible and find that a creed has got something wrong, or has overstated a point, or has drawn a conclusion that goes beyond the text, we are free to say so. Our ultimate allegiance is to the Word of God, not to any human document, however venerable.
As Baptists, we have historically been cautious about creeds, preferring simple confessions that summarise essential beliefs whilst allowing liberty on secondary matters. The 1689 London Baptist Confession, for instance, is a rich document that has served churches well, but no Baptist would claim it has the authority of Scripture itself. We confess what we believe Scripture teaches, always remaining open to correction by that same Scripture.
Conclusion
Creeds and confessions play a valuable but subordinate role alongside Scripture. They summarise biblical teaching, guard against error, connect us to historical Christianity, and clarify what churches believe. But they are human documents, always fallible, always subject to revision in light of Scripture. The moment we treat any creed as equal to or above the Bible, we have made an idol of human tradition. Scripture alone is our final authority. Everything else, including our most treasured confessions, must bow to what God has actually said in His Word.
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17
Bibliography
- Allison, Gregg R. Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine. Zondervan, 2011.
- Bray, Gerald. Creeds, Councils and Christ. Christian Focus, 1997.
- Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Creeds. 3rd ed. Longman, 1972.
- Letham, Robert. The Westminster Assembly: Reading Its Theology in Historical Context. P&R Publishing, 2009.
- McGrath, Alister E. The Christian Theology Reader. 5th ed. Wiley-Blackwell, 2016.
- Pelikan, Jaroslav. Credo: Historical and Theological Guide to Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition. Yale University Press, 2003.
