This is great! I am looking forward to your further discussion. I love the creeds and have had the opportunity of teaching the Apostles’ creed and Athanasian creed in church. Rufinus, in his commentary on the Apostles’ Creed (c. 409 AD) states that the purpose of the creed is to ensure that as the Gospel is proclaimed in all the world the same word is being taught. He does think that it was written by the Apostles, but even so I think he is right about the purpose. He wrote at a time when the creed was not in its final form. Interestingly, the version that he cites for his region adds to the article about God the Father, “invisible and impassible.” He thinks this may have been addressing a particular heresy.
That is a fascinating observation from Rufinus. Whether or not one accepts the tradition that the Apostles themselves composed the Creed, I think he was absolutely correct about its purpose. The Creed serves as a rule of faith, ensuring that Christians in different places proclaim the same Gospel and confess the same Lord.
Your note about the phrase "invisible and impassible" is particularly interesting. One of the things I find remarkable about the early creeds is that they often grew in response to specific doctrinal challenges. The Church was not adding words casually; she was carefully defining the Faith against errors that threatened to distort it.
In that sense, the history of the creeds reminds us that orthodoxy is not about novelty but about faithful preservation. The Church repeatedly found herself saying, "No, this is what we have always believed," and then expressing that belief with greater precision when necessary.
Thank you for sharing this. I suspect many readers will find it as interesting as I do.
Rufinus’s commentary can be found in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. I also wrote my own article on Substack “Creed and Canon in Rufinus of Aquilea.”
I will look both of those up. Rufinus is one of those fascinating figures who stands close enough to the early Church to give us a glimpse of how Christians understood both the Creed and the canon before many later controversies arose.
Your article sounds especially interesting because the relationship between creed and canon is often overlooked today. Many Christians know the Bible and many know the Creed, but few stop to consider how the two worked together in the life of the early Church. The Creed provided a concise summary of the apostolic faith, while the canon preserved the apostolic witness in its fullness.
Thank you for the recommendation and for contributing so thoughtfully to the discussion.
That is what I liked about Rufinus’s commentary. He unites the two. Another thing I liked is that his canon discussion occurs within the article on the Holy Spirit, as the one who inspired the scriptures.
Looking forward to these coming articles. Do you think it is time for another creed? One that focuses on current heresies of "many ways to God" and "'once saved always saved' - to the omission of holy living" and the "prosperity gospel"? Maybe the GAFCON statements come close to new creeds, at least for Anglicans.
Historically, the Church has generally written a new Creed only when a major heresy threatened the very foundations of the Faith. The Nicene Creed, for example, arose because the Church needed to clearly affirm the full divinity of Christ against Arianism.
I am not convinced we need a new Creed today so much as we need to recover and faithfully teach the ones we already have. The Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed remain remarkably effective at defining the boundaries of orthodox Christianity.
What we may need are new confessional statements that address contemporary errors. In that sense, documents such as the Jerusalem Declaration and other GAFCON statements serve an important purpose. They are not creeds, but they help clarify the Church's teaching in response to modern challenges.
The errors you mention—universalism, antinomianism ("once saved, always saved" divorced from holy living), and the prosperity gospel—are certainly serious. Yet at their root they are often old heresies wearing new clothes. The Church has faced similar distortions before.
Perhaps the greatest need of our time is not a new Creed, but Christians who actually know, believe, and live the Faith summarized in the Creeds we already possess.
Thank you for reading, and I hope you enjoy the rest of the series.
Yes, I agree. Thanks. But even the creeds we have could use an update to eliminate confusion. For instance the word "begotten." I look forward to your treatment of this word in your subsequent articles.
I understand what you mean, Gayle. The challenge is that words like "begotten" are confusing to modern ears precisely because they come from a different theological vocabulary.
Ironically, I would argue that the solution is not to replace the word but to teach it. The Creed uses "begotten, not made" because the Church was making a very precise distinction. Christ is not a created being. He is eternally begotten of the Father and therefore fully divine.
If we replace older theological terms whenever they become difficult, we may gain clarity in the short term but lose precision in the long term. Part of the task of the Church is to pass on not only the faith itself but also the language that has historically protected that faith.
I do plan to discuss that phrase in a later article because it is one of the most important—and most misunderstood—statements in the Creed.
Thank you for reading and for raising such a good question.
I have heard that phrase many times as well. Ironically, "No creed but Christ" is itself a creed—a statement of belief about what Christians ought to confess.
The difficulty is that the phrase sounds simple until someone asks, "Who is Christ?" At that point, we find ourselves making doctrinal statements. Is He God? Is He man? Is He both? Did He rise bodily from the dead? Is He the only way to the Father? The historic creeds were written precisely to answer those questions.
I suspect that many people who say "No creed but Christ" are trying to emphasize the authority of Scripture over human traditions, which is a worthy concern. The problem comes when the phrase is used, as you describe, to shut down discussion rather than encourage it.
The creeds, at their best, do not replace Scripture. They summarize what the Church believes Scripture teaches.
ISLAM-JW & TRINITARIANS= 2- OPOSITE SIDES OF SAME EXACT HERESY THAT STATES JESUS IS A DIFFERENT PERSON THEN GOD THE FATHER.
Jesus is only a son by vertue of the fact that the human flesh that the SINGULAR GOD occupied belonged to God personaly there was no other spirit in Jesus to lay claim to the male human flesh/son of marry/"SON OF MAN" ...erogo "son OF GOD" bleonging to God (as a possesion) not a second or different person!!
Psalms 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, THOU ART MY SON THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE; The spirit of God has always existed but the union of human flesh animated by the spirit of GOD himself did not exist till the human flesh was conceived, & born. Different conditions do NOT = different persons.
MODALISIM
GOD ALMIGHTY EXPLICITLY STATES HE IS GOING TO SEND HIMSELF, AND NOT ANOTHER PERSON!!
[FOLLOW THE PRONOUNS: the ONE SENDING is THE ONE SENT!! (same person sending & anouncing he is going to send his servant & he himself is the servant that he is sending)]
Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and 👉MY SERVANT👈 whom 👉I👈 have chosen: that ye may KNOW and BELIEVE 👉me👈, and UNDERSTAND that
👉✝️I AM HE✝️👈...........11 I, even I, am the LORD; and 💢👉BESIDE ME👈 THERE IS NO SAVIOR💢. 43:13 Yea, BEFORE THE DAY was✝️I AM HE✝️;
John 8:24....IF YE BELIEVE NOT that ✝️I AM HE✝️, ye shall DIE IN YOUR SINS…. 28. ... LIFTED UP the Son of man, THEN shall ye KNOW that ✝️I AM HE✝️
(John 8:58 Jesus said.....BEFORE Abraham was, ✝️I AM ✝️. 59 Then took they up stones to cast at him:...) 👈THIS IS A SPECIFIC TIME JESUS SPECIFICALY CLAIMS TO BE GOD & THEY UNDERSTOOD HIM PERFECTLY!!
You cant claim to believe that "I am HE" if you believe Jesus is a different person then God Father because to you Jesus is not HE but "some other different person sent by Him"!?! Trinitarians deny that the ONE SENDING is THE ONE SENT (same person sending & anouncing he is going to send his servant is the servant that is sent)
1Jn 2:22...Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.”, they dont seem to realize this is speaking of all those groups who claim that Jesus was a different person then the father Trinitarians/ JW islam et al..
“WHO” it was (what person) that came “IN THE FLESH”, IS THE DETERMINING FACTOR IN WHAT IT MEANS TO BE “ANT-CHRIST”! Even Islam claims Jesus was the Jewish messiah/Christ who was to come in the flesh) they all deny “WHO” it was (what person) that came (to be the Christ) in the flesh!?!…….
To deny the father is to deny the son because they are one and the same person that came in the flesh!
"IRONICALLY", trinitarians on one side & (JW & Islam-Muslims) on the other, are two opposite extrems of the SAME EXACT HERESY!!
The creeds, like anything, can be perverted by human hands. Think about what they write. "We believe" and then proceeded to create a container within that statement... a hierarchy. They kind of say .. this is our boundary and this is our identity. Yet the same words can be seen as a confession by the speaker that they have turned from the hierarchy of the worlds ways toward something else. And then one can examine that confession spoken, does one really mean it or are they performance words?
If the church system is based on the Apostles Creed, then it would know that it is always under potential judgement, never absolute. Why? Because they believe judgment is to come to the living and the dead. So it would be eternally humble to allow that judgement to occur. The judgement doesn't come from within any member of those confessors itself but external. Such a group would reject its own history, education, or any other elevating ideas so that it may receive what the creed provides.
In other creeds new containers form providing a perspective. From within those containers, the view of the divine would be an external presence as they described. Further to that it would be eternal since hierarchy cannot capture and extinguish it. Solomon builds a temple but fails to contain what cannot be contained.
This is great! I am looking forward to your further discussion. I love the creeds and have had the opportunity of teaching the Apostles’ creed and Athanasian creed in church. Rufinus, in his commentary on the Apostles’ Creed (c. 409 AD) states that the purpose of the creed is to ensure that as the Gospel is proclaimed in all the world the same word is being taught. He does think that it was written by the Apostles, but even so I think he is right about the purpose. He wrote at a time when the creed was not in its final form. Interestingly, the version that he cites for his region adds to the article about God the Father, “invisible and impassible.” He thinks this may have been addressing a particular heresy.
Thank you, Marilyn.
That is a fascinating observation from Rufinus. Whether or not one accepts the tradition that the Apostles themselves composed the Creed, I think he was absolutely correct about its purpose. The Creed serves as a rule of faith, ensuring that Christians in different places proclaim the same Gospel and confess the same Lord.
Your note about the phrase "invisible and impassible" is particularly interesting. One of the things I find remarkable about the early creeds is that they often grew in response to specific doctrinal challenges. The Church was not adding words casually; she was carefully defining the Faith against errors that threatened to distort it.
In that sense, the history of the creeds reminds us that orthodoxy is not about novelty but about faithful preservation. The Church repeatedly found herself saying, "No, this is what we have always believed," and then expressing that belief with greater precision when necessary.
Thank you for sharing this. I suspect many readers will find it as interesting as I do.
Rufinus’s commentary can be found in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. I also wrote my own article on Substack “Creed and Canon in Rufinus of Aquilea.”
Thank you, Marilyn.
I will look both of those up. Rufinus is one of those fascinating figures who stands close enough to the early Church to give us a glimpse of how Christians understood both the Creed and the canon before many later controversies arose.
Your article sounds especially interesting because the relationship between creed and canon is often overlooked today. Many Christians know the Bible and many know the Creed, but few stop to consider how the two worked together in the life of the early Church. The Creed provided a concise summary of the apostolic faith, while the canon preserved the apostolic witness in its fullness.
Thank you for the recommendation and for contributing so thoughtfully to the discussion.
That is what I liked about Rufinus’s commentary. He unites the two. Another thing I liked is that his canon discussion occurs within the article on the Holy Spirit, as the one who inspired the scriptures.
Looking forward to these coming articles. Do you think it is time for another creed? One that focuses on current heresies of "many ways to God" and "'once saved always saved' - to the omission of holy living" and the "prosperity gospel"? Maybe the GAFCON statements come close to new creeds, at least for Anglicans.
That is an excellent question.
Historically, the Church has generally written a new Creed only when a major heresy threatened the very foundations of the Faith. The Nicene Creed, for example, arose because the Church needed to clearly affirm the full divinity of Christ against Arianism.
I am not convinced we need a new Creed today so much as we need to recover and faithfully teach the ones we already have. The Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed remain remarkably effective at defining the boundaries of orthodox Christianity.
What we may need are new confessional statements that address contemporary errors. In that sense, documents such as the Jerusalem Declaration and other GAFCON statements serve an important purpose. They are not creeds, but they help clarify the Church's teaching in response to modern challenges.
The errors you mention—universalism, antinomianism ("once saved, always saved" divorced from holy living), and the prosperity gospel—are certainly serious. Yet at their root they are often old heresies wearing new clothes. The Church has faced similar distortions before.
Perhaps the greatest need of our time is not a new Creed, but Christians who actually know, believe, and live the Faith summarized in the Creeds we already possess.
Thank you for reading, and I hope you enjoy the rest of the series.
Yes, I agree. Thanks. But even the creeds we have could use an update to eliminate confusion. For instance the word "begotten." I look forward to your treatment of this word in your subsequent articles.
I understand what you mean, Gayle. The challenge is that words like "begotten" are confusing to modern ears precisely because they come from a different theological vocabulary.
Ironically, I would argue that the solution is not to replace the word but to teach it. The Creed uses "begotten, not made" because the Church was making a very precise distinction. Christ is not a created being. He is eternally begotten of the Father and therefore fully divine.
If we replace older theological terms whenever they become difficult, we may gain clarity in the short term but lose precision in the long term. Part of the task of the Church is to pass on not only the faith itself but also the language that has historically protected that faith.
I do plan to discuss that phrase in a later article because it is one of the most important—and most misunderstood—statements in the Creed.
Thank you for reading and for raising such a good question.
All I heard growing up was “No creed but Christ”. No elaboration. It was meant to silence questions.
Thank you, David.
I have heard that phrase many times as well. Ironically, "No creed but Christ" is itself a creed—a statement of belief about what Christians ought to confess.
The difficulty is that the phrase sounds simple until someone asks, "Who is Christ?" At that point, we find ourselves making doctrinal statements. Is He God? Is He man? Is He both? Did He rise bodily from the dead? Is He the only way to the Father? The historic creeds were written precisely to answer those questions.
I suspect that many people who say "No creed but Christ" are trying to emphasize the authority of Scripture over human traditions, which is a worthy concern. The problem comes when the phrase is used, as you describe, to shut down discussion rather than encourage it.
The creeds, at their best, do not replace Scripture. They summarize what the Church believes Scripture teaches.
Thank you for sharing your experience.
THE TRINITY IS ANTI-CHRIST (?)
ISLAM-JW & TRINITARIANS= 2- OPOSITE SIDES OF SAME EXACT HERESY THAT STATES JESUS IS A DIFFERENT PERSON THEN GOD THE FATHER.
Jesus is only a son by vertue of the fact that the human flesh that the SINGULAR GOD occupied belonged to God personaly there was no other spirit in Jesus to lay claim to the male human flesh/son of marry/"SON OF MAN" ...erogo "son OF GOD" bleonging to God (as a possesion) not a second or different person!!
Psalms 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, THOU ART MY SON THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE; The spirit of God has always existed but the union of human flesh animated by the spirit of GOD himself did not exist till the human flesh was conceived, & born. Different conditions do NOT = different persons.
MODALISIM
GOD ALMIGHTY EXPLICITLY STATES HE IS GOING TO SEND HIMSELF, AND NOT ANOTHER PERSON!!
[FOLLOW THE PRONOUNS: the ONE SENDING is THE ONE SENT!! (same person sending & anouncing he is going to send his servant & he himself is the servant that he is sending)]
Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and 👉MY SERVANT👈 whom 👉I👈 have chosen: that ye may KNOW and BELIEVE 👉me👈, and UNDERSTAND that
👉✝️I AM HE✝️👈...........11 I, even I, am the LORD; and 💢👉BESIDE ME👈 THERE IS NO SAVIOR💢. 43:13 Yea, BEFORE THE DAY was✝️I AM HE✝️;
John 8:24....IF YE BELIEVE NOT that ✝️I AM HE✝️, ye shall DIE IN YOUR SINS…. 28. ... LIFTED UP the Son of man, THEN shall ye KNOW that ✝️I AM HE✝️
(John 8:58 Jesus said.....BEFORE Abraham was, ✝️I AM ✝️. 59 Then took they up stones to cast at him:...) 👈THIS IS A SPECIFIC TIME JESUS SPECIFICALY CLAIMS TO BE GOD & THEY UNDERSTOOD HIM PERFECTLY!!
You cant claim to believe that "I am HE" if you believe Jesus is a different person then God Father because to you Jesus is not HE but "some other different person sent by Him"!?! Trinitarians deny that the ONE SENDING is THE ONE SENT (same person sending & anouncing he is going to send his servant is the servant that is sent)
1Jn 2:22...Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.”, they dont seem to realize this is speaking of all those groups who claim that Jesus was a different person then the father Trinitarians/ JW islam et al..
“WHO” it was (what person) that came “IN THE FLESH”, IS THE DETERMINING FACTOR IN WHAT IT MEANS TO BE “ANT-CHRIST”! Even Islam claims Jesus was the Jewish messiah/Christ who was to come in the flesh) they all deny “WHO” it was (what person) that came (to be the Christ) in the flesh!?!…….
To deny the father is to deny the son because they are one and the same person that came in the flesh!
"IRONICALLY", trinitarians on one side & (JW & Islam-Muslims) on the other, are two opposite extrems of the SAME EXACT HERESY!!
https://allendaves.substack.com/p/children-of-a-lesser-god?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1xhldx
The creeds, like anything, can be perverted by human hands. Think about what they write. "We believe" and then proceeded to create a container within that statement... a hierarchy. They kind of say .. this is our boundary and this is our identity. Yet the same words can be seen as a confession by the speaker that they have turned from the hierarchy of the worlds ways toward something else. And then one can examine that confession spoken, does one really mean it or are they performance words?
If the church system is based on the Apostles Creed, then it would know that it is always under potential judgement, never absolute. Why? Because they believe judgment is to come to the living and the dead. So it would be eternally humble to allow that judgement to occur. The judgement doesn't come from within any member of those confessors itself but external. Such a group would reject its own history, education, or any other elevating ideas so that it may receive what the creed provides.
In other creeds new containers form providing a perspective. From within those containers, the view of the divine would be an external presence as they described. Further to that it would be eternal since hierarchy cannot capture and extinguish it. Solomon builds a temple but fails to contain what cannot be contained.