Creeds fall short when it comes to the Mystery of the GodHead

Colossians 1:18-20 King James Version (KJV)
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Creeds are inadequate attempt by man to describe the glory of the GodHead. When God Himself is the subject, there is no finality of understanding, and there is no creed that can fully explain the infinite nature of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. We must stick to the scriptures and not presume anything they do not reveal, and not deny anything they do.

Here is a good read of the issue by Benjamin Franklin...

'The Failure of Creeds

"But there are so many creeds, all claiming to be right, that I should not know which to take. They were all made by learned men, and if they can not agree on the kind of a creed, how am I to decide which is right?" says one. It is a matter of great moment and of much relief that, aside from all these conflicting, clashing, and erring creeds, there is one book that all parties concede is right. They all agree that the Bible is right — that it came from God. They all further agree that it contains the law of God — that the law of the Lord is perfect. The only wonder is, that man ever attempted to make any other creed or law for the Church. Such an undertaking could not have commenced without two wicked assumptions:

1. That the law of God, as set forth in the Bible, is not sufficient — is a failure.

2. That the insufficiency or failure can be remedied by weak, erring, and uninspired men.

No man of intelligence will affirm, in plain terms, that the Bible is not sufficient for the government of the saints; or that man — uninspired man — can make a creed that will serve a better purpose than the Bible. Still such affirmations are implied in every attempt made by uninspired men to make a creed. If you admit, as all are bound to do, that the law of God is in the Bible; that nothing may be added to it, nothing taken from it, and that no part of it may be changed, there is not an excuse in the world for making another law. The law of God in the Bible is the law, the divine law, the supreme law, in the kingdom of God; and it is a treasonable movement to attempt to get up another constitution, law, name, body, or officers, apart from the constitution, law, name, body, and officers as found in the Bible.

But the matter now in hand is to find a safe course to pursue. Can this be done? All admit the Bible is right. All admit that the law of God in the Bible is right. All admit that those who follow the Bible honestly and faithfully, in faith and practice, will be saved. All admit that wherever any creed differs from the Bible is wrong. Then it is infallibly safe to take the Bible and follow it. When men undertake to prove that a human creed is a good one, they argue that it is like the Bible. If a creed like the Bible is a good one, why will not the Bible itself do? If the Bible will not serve the purpose — is insufficient and a failure — a creed like it would be equally insufficient. When men make a creed to do what the Bible would not do, they should certainly make it different from the Bible, or it would serve no better purpose than the Bible itself.'...Benjamin Franklin's The Gospel Preacher [Sermon XV: The Course to Pursue to Be Infallibly Safe].

 

And a even better one...

'In their article... Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes claim that the local churches “refuse to accept the orthodox creedal statements on the Trinity.”1 In endnote 3 they wrote, “A doctrine is said to be aberrant if it undermines or is in significant tension with the orthodox beliefs of the historic Christian faith as based in the Bible and expressed in the early Christian creeds.” By making the creeds the authoritative expression of biblical truth, Geisler and Rhodes actually make the creeds a higher rule of faith than the Bible....

The Bible testifies of itself: “All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). For man to consider the creeds as authoritative is for him to annul the authority of the Bible! It causes man to take the creeds as the standard instead of taking the Bible as the standard!..." https://contendingforthefaith.org/en/the-error-of-making-creeds-not-the-bible-the-rule-of-faith/

 

That is the issue, and yet many apply it and say this is complete, when its not.

 

And yet they enforce it as a end all/be all code for being accepted as a Christian, so who needs any such implication when its already being used as the standard rather than scripture.

 

So why were they used to put people to the stake or persecute them, not just gather them together. Creeds were weaponized as we say today and used against even those who were harmless or unknowing, not just unbelievers. Seems to have a little meat in that 'nothing burger'...

 

Yes, but that is not a Christian church or people should be doing. Spreading the Gospel and teaching Gods Word to the world, not trying to kill them if they don't follow 'their creed'.

 

No, we need to hold the Bible only as our creed, mans ideas and traditions fail when it comes to the mystery of the GodHead.

 

Anytime man tries to force one to believe in the divine, it does not work. One has turn to God and His the truth and to choose from the heart and ones mind as they are moved by the Holy Spirit.