Category: Scripture

The Problem with Man Made Creeds

On By Tyler BoydIn Restoration, Scripture, The Authority of God

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word “creed” as:

1: A brief authoritative formula of religious belief
2: A set of fundamental beliefs; a guiding principle

Christians should have no problems with “creeds” per se. The New Testament is filled with “authoritative formulas of religious belief” and statements of “fundamental beliefs” and “guiding principles.” (Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 12:3; 1 Cor. 15:3-10; Phil. 2:6-11; 1 Tim. 2:5; 1 Tim. 3:16, etc.)

Yet throughout Christian history, many have struggled to separate truth from error, and have often surrendered fundamental Christian truths for all kinds of cultural whims. For this reason there is continual need for Christians to stand firm on the authority of Jesus Christ and continually look to the inspired Scriptures to guide their faith and practice.

But rather than looking to the Scriptures themselves to define the truth, correct error, and provide the rules and standards by which faithful Christians can maintain unity, many have sought to protect the Christian faith through the practice of writing and upholding additional creeds. It is argued that through the writing of creeds, the church can determine which beliefs and practices are non-negotiable, and can protect the church against over-emphasizing the importance of less fundamental issues.

Although the motives behind writing and upholding extra-biblical creeds are often praiseworthy, Christians must avoid exalting any uninspired statements of faith to the authority of a creed. Not only does the practice of developing creeds fail to protect the church against doctrinal error and division, it actually furthers those problems as turns the church away from looking to the authority of the inspired Scriptures.

How Creeds Create Division

One danger of uninspired creeds is that those creeds may require too much, resulting in unnecessary division. In the books of Romans and Galatians, Paul opposed the practice of the Jewish Christians who were adding requirements to the gospel, and consequently compromising the sufficiency of the cross. Those of the circumcision party had laid the charge against Gentile Christians that their faithfulness to Christ was insufficient, and that they must also keep the “works of the law” to be welcomed into Abraham’s family.

Rather than establishing their lines of fellowship upon union in Christ, the Jewish Christians sought to define the boundaries of fellowship by their sectarian identity markers, such as the practice of circumcision. But Paul reminded them that Christ has set us free from the works of the law.

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit to a yoke of slavery.

Galatian 5:1

The problem was not that they had a written creed, but that they had certain issues which they had elevated as “essential” that were not at all “essential” for someone to be faithful to Christ. Even if their creed was not written down, they still had a creed, and they were dividing the body of Christ because of it.

Although we may feel the need for a written creed to pump the brakes on progressives who would drive the church to embrace all kinds of unhealthy cultural values, we are simply not permitted to “pump the brakes” with any requirements that extend beyond what faithfulness to Christ demands. To do so would unnecessarily divide the body of Christ.

How Creeds Open the Door to Error

Another danger of man-made creeds is that they may require too little. The whole idea of trying to determine which doctrines are “essential” and “non-negotiable” from those that are “non-essential” and thus “negotiable” strikes me as silly – if not outright arrogant. Yes, some doctrines may be “weightier” than others, but even so, we must hold to those weightier matters without neglecting the others (cf. Mt. 23:23). After all, it does not matter what you or I or any other human being thinks is an “non-negotiable” issue. All that matters is what God has revealed. Are we willing to embrace a posture that categorizes certain commands of God as being either “important” or “non-important”? Even if there are such things as “essential” and “non-essential doctrines” who gets to decide?

What issues can we really deem as “non-essential”? We cannot march up to God’s throne and ask Him to give us a seat. If I disobey God regarding any issue He has addressed in His word (whether ignorantly or not), I am guilty of sin. Sin is the violation of God’s will on any given issue (Rom. 14:23; Jas. 4:17; 1 John 3:4; 5:17).

It is not merely important for the church be faithful in a few key doctrines. Even an issue as minor as eating the right foods can lead to condemnation if the eating is not from faith (Rom. 14:23). All issues, regardless of whether we deem them to be important or not, have the power to break our fellowship with God (Rom. 6:23; Is. 59:1-2).

Of course, God often grants a period of grace. For example, to the church at Ephesus, Jesus said,

Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

Revelation 2:5

Since Jesus warned he would remove their lampstand, we can conclude that, at least for the time being, their lampstand was not yet removed. But still, He was warning them that their period of grace would not extend forever. They were guilty of sin, but God continued to extend them fellowship, at least for the time being.

But to the church in Thyatira he said,

I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refused to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation unless they repent of her works.

Revelation 2:20-22

Did the church at Thyatira get to decide when Jezebel’s period of grace would end? Perhaps her elders had tried to comfort her by saying, “We don’t approve of your sexual immorality, but it’s not what we would consider an “essential issue” so we will continue to tolerate it.”

Only God gets to decide how far He will continue to extend His grace and fellowship. But when we refuse to obey God on any issue, it can deem us unworthy of the Kingdom of God (2 Thess. 1:5, 8).

Although many will call for man made creeds in order to prevent the church from arguing over matters of lesser importance, the very practice of categorizing certain errors as being more “tolerable”  opens the door for Christians to continue to fellowship those who faithlessly and continuously practice sin.

How Creeds Misconstrue Christian Fellowship

But what if creeds are written by wise and pious Christians, so that they neither say too much, nor too little, but faithfully reflect what is revealed in Scripture?

In such as case, the creed would be completely redundant and unnecessary. If the creed teaches the same thing at Scripture, why would we choose to point to a man-made creed instead of pointing back to the God-given Scriptures which teach the same thing? Doing so would imply that Scripture itself is somehow insufficient for teaching, for reproof, for correction, or for training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:15-16). We cannot invest uninspired writings with authority without simultaneously divesting the inspired writings of their authority.

Moreover, the practice of upholding creeds (even “good” ones) changes Christian fellowship into something which can be defined by a checklist. Yet our salvation has never been based on works, but rather on the grace we are given as we are faithful to Christ (Eph. 2:8-9). Perfect commandment keeping is not essential for Christian fellowship. Having our sins washed in the blood of Christ is essential (Eph. 2:13-15).

All Christians are on a learning curve. Once someone becomes a Christian, they begin a lifetime of growth. The very fact that there are “babes” in Christ (Heb. 6:1), implies that Christians do not immediately have the understanding necessary to be called “mature.” We are commanded to be patient with Christians who have not yet attained a mature understanding of the truth (Rom. 14:1; 15:1; 1 Cor. 8:9). Some may hold onto several wrong beliefs for the time being, but are still faithful, and still striving to learn the truth more perfectly. Not only are we commanded to teach the truth, but we are commanded to teach it with “all patience” (2 Tim. 4:2).

It is understandable that faithful Christians will have theological baggage they must continually strive to overcome as they grow in their maturity. This is especially true of those who grew up in liberal, conservative, denominational, or non-Christian backgrounds. Even mature Christians continually grow in their knowledge.

This means there may be certain “issues” that we judge as “essential” that God is willing to forgive in some situations. There also may be some “issues” that we judge as “non-essential,” but they become essential due to the faithless and rebellious attitude behind them (cf. Rom. 14:23).

One of the beautiful things about being in Christ is that we don’t have to get everything perfect. We simply must “walk in the light” (1 John 1:7). We are not saved by a creedal checklist, and so we must avoid the creedal checklist approach to fellowship.

One “advantage” of man made creeds is that we may be able to define the lines of fellowship in a simpler and more precise manner than what we experience when we simply fellowship with those who are in Christ, who live faithfully before him (Gal. 3:26-27). But “simpler” and “neater” is not better if leads to unnecessary division of the body of Christ, leads to the toleration of sinful practices, or reduces Christian fellowship to a checklist mentality.

Some will argue that we already have “unwritten” creeds, so we might as well put them into writing so as to make them clear. A better solution would be to stop investing man’s ideas with authority, regardless of whether those creeds are written or unwritten.

But what if some try to lead the church into error? What if some argue and divide over foolish controversies? Both problems are the result, not of looking to Scripture alone for our authority, but of the failure to respect the authority of God’s word to define our faith and practice.

Whenever someone wants to know what we believe, the best answer will always be “let’s look at the Bible together” (cf. Acts 17:11). Let’s demand nothing more. Let’s demand nothing less.

One Creation Story or Two?

On By Tyler BoydIn Scripture

In recent years I’ve noticed a growing trend where Genesis 1 and 2 are often referred to as “the first and second creation stories.” If there are, in fact, two different creation accounts in Genesis 1-2, this would strongly imply that there were two different authors or two different sources behind what we now recognize as the book of Genesis. This would also cast serious doubt on the traditional view of the Mosaic origin of the book of Genesis. This claim is also used to imply that inspired scripture contains contradictions, which in turn challenges the truthfulness, reliability, and inspiration of scripture as a whole.

It is my position that we should not describe Genesis 1 and 2 and two separate creation accounts. The first reason is because the evidence used to suggest that the two chapters are in tension with one another is not at all obvious. The second is reason is that a careful reading of the book of Genesis implies that the first two chapters of the book were always intended to be read together and in light of one another.

The Reasons for “Two Creation Stories” Language

The two supposed creation stores are Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25. Genesis 1:1-2:3 has a seven day structure, with six days of creation and a seventh day of rest. By the end of this section, you have an account of the creation of the whole world. You have mankind living on dry land, which has been separated from the water. You have the sun, moon, stars, plants, and various animals all filling the created world.

This section comes to a clear conclusion in Genesis 2:3.

So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.

Genesis 2:4 then introduces a new section of scripture.

These are the generations
of the heavens and the earth when they were created,
in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.

At this point, the reader will quickly notice that the section of scripture that follows is not connected to chapter 1 in a clear, linear, chronological sequence. Genesis 2:5 does not pick up right where Genesis 2:3 left off with the beginning of the second week. Instead, it describes a situation where there was no “bush” or “small plants” in the field. Then the text goes back and gives additional details about the creation of man.

When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up – for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground – then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. And the LORD God planted a garden of Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 2:5-9

Not only does Genesis 2:4 begin a new section, but there are some stylistic differences between the two sections. One obvious example is that God is referred to as “God” (Elohim) throughout Genesis 1, whereas “LORD” (Yahweh) is used in Genesis 2:4ff.

Why would one author choose to use two different names for God? This is an excellent question. You can see how a modern reader might conclude that either the author of Genesis is schizophrenic, or there are two different authors.

Another reason for the “two creation stories” language is that there are allegedly contradictions between the two sections. This suggestion is primarily focused on the order of creation. Genesis 1 indicates that plants were created on the third day (1:11-12), and that man was created on the sixth day (1:26ff), whereas in Genesis 2 there were no bushes or small plants in the field until after the formation of man (2:5-7). Genesis 1 represents animals as existing before man (1:24-26), whereas Genesis 2 describes the creation of man (2:7) prior to the creation of animals (2:18-19).

These stylistic differences and alleged contradictions between the two narrative sections are the primary reasons why some refer to Genesis 1 & 2 as two creation stories.

Disunity Between Genesis 1 and 2 Is Not At All Obvious

Although there are clear differences between Genesis 1 and 2, the alleged contradictions are not at all obvious. It’s not difficult to find numerous commentators and scholars who have shown that Genesis 1 and 2 can easily be read in harmony with one another.

If Genesis 2 appears to recap Genesis 1 in some places, this should not surprise us. While in western cultures we tend to read and process everything in clear linear, chronological fashion, we should not assume that the author of Genesis intends to tell the story in this way. In the book of Genesis (as well as in other ancient near eastern writings) it is common to tell stories in cyclical fashion, where recapitulation is often employed. For an author to break from a linear, chronological telling of the story is not at all foreign to their culture. When Genesis 2 describes the creation of plants, animals, and man, this should not be considered strong evidence that the text has a different origin.

While it is helpful to observe stylistic differences between chapters 1 and 2, It is well known that a single author can vary his style or vocabulary to fit the points he wants the reader to draw from the text. Could it be that the author intentionally used the name “God” in Genesis 1, and intentionally started using “LORD” in Genesis 2 because he had a purpose for doing so?

Elohim and Yahweh are not synonyms. Elohim is a more generic term for powerful spiritual beings, whereas Yahweh is the personal name for the God of Israel. While Genesis 1 begins with the claim that the heavens an the earth were created by an Elohim (a claim which would easily be accepted in the ancient world), Genesis 2 makes the point that the heavens and the earth weren’t just created by any god. It was THE LORD God, Yahweh, the God of Israel who created the universe and all of mankind. The Creator is not only all-powerful, but He is also the most-personal and most-faithful. If we jump too quickly to the conclusion that Genesis 1 and 2 have different origins, we may miss what the author was intending to communicate by changing his style the way he did.

Although there are alleged contradictions, they are not at all obvious, as numerous biblical scholars have observed. For a good overview of why we should not assume that the chapters contradict one another, I recommend this article written by Wayne Jackson: “Critical Theory Attacks Genesis 1 and 2”. As long as there are possible satisfactory explanations to show that the text does not contradict itself, we should not act as if it obviously does.

Genesis 1 and 2 are Designed to be Read in Relation to Each Other

Biblical scholars have long recognized that the various sections of the book of Genesis are linked together by the recurring phrase, “These are the generations of…” Variations of this formula appear ten different time throughout the book (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1; 37:2). In each instance, this “generations” phrase serves to introduce the upcoming section of scripture and to link it to the section of scripture that has immediately preceded it. This is significant because it shows that Genesis 2:4 functions not merely as an introduction to the Adam and Eve narrative that follows, but also as a link that hitches the story of Adam and Eve back to the story of creation in Genesis 1. In other words, Genesis 2:4 communicates to the reader that the two stories should be read in connection to one another.

To illustrate this point, consider how the “generations” phrase functions throughout the rest of the book of Genesis. The next two appearances of the phrase are found in Genesis 5:1, “This is the book of the generations of Adam”, and in in Genesis 6:9, “These are the generations of Noah.” Between Genesis 5:1 and 6:9 is a genealogy that traces an unbroken line between Adam and Noah. Next, Genesis 10:1 begins a section that traces the descendants of the sons of Noah as they were scattered into the various nations of the earth, thus linking Noah to the story of Babel that follows. Next, Genesis 11:10 and 11:27 bracket another genealogy that links the chosen line of Shem to the family of Abram. Genesis 25:12, and 25:19, and 36:1 trace the descendants of Ismael, Isaac, and Esau. Finally Genesis 37:2, “These are the generations of Jacob” continues the story of Jacob’s family by introducing Joseph and Judah.

Every time this phrase appears, it functions to hold the book of Genesis together into one unified work, by clearly communicating to the reader that each of these main characters are connected to one another, and should be considered in light of one another. In other words, the author of the book of Genesis intends for its readers to think of the book as one unified work.

Therefore Genesis 2:4 serves to show how Adam and Eve should be read as proceeding from creation in similarity to how the nations proceeded from Noah, Abram proceeded from the nations, and Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph all proceeded from Abraham. When read in this way, we understand that creation itself points the reader forward to the story of Israel and all mankind. This explains why Jesus showed no hesitation in combining both Genesis 1 and 2 to establish his teaching (Mark 10:5-8).

To read Genesis 1 and 2 as two independent creation stories disregards the author’s design of the book of Genesis and his intention for the stories to be read together as a unified whole. When we separate the stories, we miss theological points that can be drawn only by reading the whole text. Before adopting this language, bible students should carefully reconsider whether it actually honors the inspired text, or if it serves to hinder our understanding by introducing internal disunity that was not intended by the author.