Creedal Conclusion
Is there any inherent danger in creedal Christianity? I think the obvious answer is yes. Many oppose creeds out of their concern that the creeds may supplant the Bible as the ultimate rule of faith. Most creedal Christians, however, do not understand creeds in this manner. John Webster writes:
Creeds and confessions have no freestanding existence; they are not a replacement for, supplementation of, or improvement upon Holy Scripture; they are not even a nonnegotiable, normative ‘reading’ of Scripture.
Creeds are authoritative only insofar as they are scriptural in content.
An additional danger which concerns some is the risk that creeds may take the place of a dynamic living relationship with God. Recitation of creeds may become a substitute for vibrant trust and faith in the Object of the creeds. This is certainly a possibility, but is by no means entailed by either the use of creeds in worship or study. Alister McGrath, concerning this danger writes:
A creed is not, and was never meant to be, a substitute for personal faith. It attempts to give substance to a personal faith that already exists. You do not become a Christian by reciting a creed. Rather the Creed provides a useful summary of the main points of your faith.
Given the fundamental importance of theology and doctrine to an individual’s spiritual growth and the health of a group of believers, the creeds may be helpful in providing a firm foundation upon which to build. We can learn much from the great Christian thinkers of the past which will assist us in striving for unity, in personal discipleship and training of new believers, in combating false beliefs, and in evangelizing in our contemporary culture.