Why do so many churches not use the Nicene Creed?

The title should probably be, Why do so many Evangelical Churches not use the Nicene Creed? or the Apostles’ Creed? There may be a few other reasons, but I will highlight three.

#1 Creeds are man-made 

Baptists generally do not accept or embrace creeds. “ 'I’m a Baptist, and Baptists don’t believe in creeds.' [This is] a widespread sentiment in our context of Baptist life. One reason many Baptists see the creeds as un-Baptist is the oft-repeated slogan ‘No creed but the Bible!’ ”

(I have most often heard that slogan stated as, “No creed but Christ, no book but the Bible” and it seems to have originated in the work of Alexander Campbell (1788-1866). He was a Restorationist and eschewed creeds as do the churches tracing their origin to him: Churches of Christ & Disciples of Christ.)

"Southern Baptists do not subscribe to a creed and firmly believe in the Priesthood of the Believer," says Dr. David George, director of missions for the Chugach Baptist Association. "This means that we do not rely on any hierarchy to decree how we are to interpret scripture, but it is left up to the individual, his church, and the Holy Spirit."

(The Baptist Faith and Message has 18 articles)

Another group expressly opposed to creeds are Pentecostals.

“The founders of the Assemblies of God (more specifically, the early Pentecostals) desired to cut out any creed as being ‘man-made’. After but a few years, however, they formulated what they considered to be a Biblical statement of beliefs (though the language of a ‘creed’ was excluded, because there was still a rejection of things creedal as being ‘human’).”

(The AG Statement of Fundamental Truths has 16 points)

I was a pastor in the C&MA for 25 years. We didn’t use the Creeds. In fact, the early attitude was, “The Alliance has neither formal creed nor official confession of faith, so called; it has not felt the need of one” (although now there is a statement of faith). During my years in the Alliance we used three hymnbooks: the blue 1936, the red/gray 1962, 1972 purple. The red book had the creeds on the first page, the purple had the creeds between responsive readings and hymn index in the back.

I am persuaded that such attitudes are the result of not understanding Apostolic Tradition - the Rule of Faith was a deposit to be kept, guarded, and passed on rather than a development.

#2 It's Catholic

I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church

‘We can’t use this because it is Catholic and we are definitely not Catholic.’

But is it true the creed promotes Roman Catholicism? No!

Just a little history. AD 1064 witnessed the Great Schism between the Orthodox Church of the East and the Roman Catholic Church of the West. 450 years before Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses on the Wittenberg church door on October 31, 1517 and the Protestant Reformation officially began, the Orthodox broke ranks with the Roman Catholic Church. The last thing the Orthodox want to be or promote is the Roman Catholic Church, yet they still confess, I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church agree: “The word "catholic" is derived from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning "general", "universal". Applied to the church, the adjective "catholic" means that in the church the wholeness of the Christian faith, full and complete, all-embracing, and with nothing lacking, is proclaimed to all people without excluding any part of the faith or any class or group of people. The adjective can be applied not only to the church as spread throughout the world but also to each local manifestation of the church, in each of which nothing essential is lacking for it to be the genuine Church of Christ.”

Amen! Is this not a grand truth worthy of explanation and confession?

#3 Baptism for the forgiveness of sins

I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins (I still have a tendency to say with the older version, remission of sins)

Folks say, “See, we can’t use it because we don’t believe in baptism for the remission of sins.”

Apparently these same folks have forgotten that baptism for the remission of sins is actually a biblical phrase:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

If you use the NIV, NASB, ESV you will find forgiveness of sins; either way it is clearly a biblical phrase.

I can see someone jumping up, “What are you saying?!?” Just that it’s a biblical phrase. If you have a problem with the expression you have a problem with the Bible, not the creed.

Do you know the New Testament also says of baptism:

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Titus 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Again, What am I saying?? Actually, I am not making any commentary on the meaning of baptism - you will have to decide what these passages mean. But if your view or doctrine of baptism does not allow you to use these expressions when you speak of it, may I suggest you need to rethink your doctrine of baptism, because it clearly is not biblical.


I believe the Nicene Creed reflects the deposit of The Faith handed down to the Church by the Apostles. Therefore, what we need is not the formulation of new statements of faith, but solid and sound teaching of The Faith as we find it in the Rule of Faith.


Wednesday - The Rule of Faith and the Bible