Creeds & Creedalism: Clarifying Terms for Better Conversation

An ongoing debate among Advent Christians has focused around creedalism and non-creedalism. As the 2026 Triennial Convention approaches with significant proposals for us to vote on, that discussion has become more prominent.

We have, for a few months, been evaluating these proposals through articles, videos, and various other discussions. These have been helpful in getting us to think through what is before us. At the same time, it has also become clear that we often use the same words in different ways, and this tends to create confusion and misunderstanding. I suspect, however, that we all want this discussion to be productive and clarifying. With that goal in mind, I would like to define several key terms as they are understood by one who gladly considers himself a creedalist.

Creed: A brief doctrinal statement that focuses on the essentials of the faith. i.e., This is what Christians should believe.

Confession: A  thorough doctrinal statement that addresses many subjects in order to distinguish one group of Christians from another. Confessions, in this sense, include statements and declarations of faith. i.e., This is what a particular group of Christians believes.

As has been noted elsewhere, the 2026 DoP includes essentials of the faith, but also includes doctrines that are particular to Advent Christians. It is not only “What do Christians believe?” but also, “What do Advent Christians believe?” I would suggest that, properly speaking, the 2026 DoP is not a creed, but rather a brief confession.

Some creedalists among us may distinguish the boundaries between creeds and confessions somewhat differently than this, but the overall point in relation to creedalism remains the same.

Creedalism: The belief that the church (individual churches and/or groups of churches) should define and confess biblical teaching in the form of creeds, confessions, and/or statements/declarations of faith that possess authority that is subordinate to Scripture.

Non-creedalism: Rather than define a position that is not my own, I invite those who consider themselves non-creedalists to explain how they understand the term. It has been my observation that there are different varieties of non-creedalism among us and I would prefer not to misrepresent their positions.

Non-creedalists: please provide your definition of your view in the comment section below rather than on social media in order to enable the most people to view them.

Solo Scriptura or Scripture Only: The Bible is the only binding  authority in matters of faith and practice. No Christian can or should be obligated to affirm a particular creed or confession. In modern theological discussions Solo Scriptura (Scripture Only) is sometimes used to distinguish a view summarized by the phrase, “no creed but the Bible” from the historic Protestant doctrine of, Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone). 

Sola Scriptura or  Scripture Alone: The Bible is the final, ultimate authority in all matters of faith and practice. All other faith standards – creeds, confessions, theology texts, etc – derive whatever authority they possess from their faithful agreement with Scripture. Scripture is the only infallible authority. Other authorities are real within their proper spheres, but derivative and are always subject to correction by Scripture.

In other words, according to the historic doctrine of Sola Scriptura, as articulated during the reformation, creeds do not and must not have authority equal to or over Scripture. Creeds and confessions can be binding upon groups of Christians when there is mutual agreement. 

The 2026 DoP affirms that the Bible “. . . is the only divine standard of faith and practice (Principle I).” The corresponding denial states, “that the authority of God’s Word - the Bible - and the truth of its testimony can ever be overturned, superseded, or added upon by any claims of new revelation or the supposed wisdom of human knowledge.” Within this proposal itself, there is no room for a man-made document that supersedes Scripture. No human-written statement can or should be placed equal to or above it. As the very Word of God, its authority is ultimate and so Scripture is the final judge of any faith controversy.

Yet, the preamble to the 2026 DoP states that, “The Advent Christian Declaration of Principles is intended to provide a clear standard for membership in the denomination among regions, conferences, churches, and ministers.” Principle X later mentions that groups of churches should seek to covenant together around mutually agreed upon beliefs. For some this has seemed to be a contradiction with Principle I. If these belief statements are binding, are they not, therefore, above Scripture?

The answer is simple: no.

First, creeds and confessions are summaries of what a group of believers understands as the faithful teaching of Scripture. They are neither additions to Scripture nor supplements that stand on equal footing with it.

Second, as with other things in life, there are differing degrees of authority. For instance, when parents hire a babysitter, that babysitter has authority over the children while on the job. Yet, the parents remain the ultimate authority and the decisions of the babysitter can be judged according to the parents. Likewise, creedal statements have authority that is derived from their faithful agreement with Scripture. And such teaching should be judged by Scripture.

Third, such creedal statements are not forced on churches by an outside body (such things have happened in some theocratic nations), but rather are willingly and mutually agreed upon by the churches. That is, within our own congregational polity such standards are only binding through mutually covenanting together.

Practically speaking, every church has standards. We judge who can preach or become a church leader. We determine the doctrinal (or Christian character) boundaries for church membership. And we determine such practical matters as who should be baptized and when should we partake in the Lord’s Supper. The real question is, “Are these standards public and accessible, or are they unwritten and therefore not easily knowable?” The answer to that question is, at least from the creedalist position, at the heart of the current proposals.

I would like to suggest that the Bible itself points us to the answer. I Timothy 3:15 says that the church is “a pillar and buttress of the truth.” The idea presented is that the church itself – that is, the likeminded followers of Christ who have joined together in unity – is to be the upholder of the truth of God’s Word. In order for us to accomplish this purpose together, we must have some cohesive understanding of God’s Word. That cohesion does not need to address every area of theology, but it does need to address the essentials and those subjects that make us distinct.

For churches to uphold the truth it is critical for pastors, as Titus 1:9 tells us, to be able to teach sound doctrine and refute error. Likewise, Jude 1:3 calls all Christians to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” These responsibilities require us to know clearly and express faithfully what we believe.

In Matthew 10:32-33 Jesus charges us to confess him before others. And Romans 10:10 instructs us to confess our faith. That is a public act. Our understanding of God’s Word, and particularly of the gospel of the Lord Jesus, is to be public. 

Churches teach doctrine. So do their pastors. These churches and pastors have doctrinal standards. Creedalism simply asks for these standards to be clear, public, mutually agreed upon, and consistent with Scripture.

We need clarity in terminology. Even more importantly, though, we need clarity of belief. And, like the two millenia of Christians before us, we should gladly confess our mutual faith together.

For those interested, I would like to offer you a free resource I developed for my church. Click here for a free download of “Creeds & Confessions: Their Value and Use In the Church”.