Interestingly stated. (I think that quote was from Madison, not Adams, but I could be wrong.) The written code has been nailed to the cross, with the law of God now written on our hearts. When we are truly following Christ, neither a written code nor a creed are necessary. But I'll put my faith in the inerrant Word over a human-authored creed any day. Insofar as a creed is viewed as a fallible set of opinions, I don't have a problem with them. It's using them as an inerrant "shorthand" test of fellowship that bothers me. That is what divides, not the truths that may or may not be expressed in them. This topic (and Paul's treatment of it) relates to the one of "
What makes sin sin?" God bless, Kevin Harper
I think what you're missing here is that the creeds are less a matter for individuals, than they are a matter for the Church, in the same way that the Constitution is a document meant for the government, rather than the citizens of the nation.
Also, the creeds are not a set of "fallible opinions," nor are they to be regarded as holy writ. Rather, they list those things that one must believe if one is a Christian. Take a look at the Nicene or Apostles' Creeds, and see if there's anything wrong with what they say -- and the answer is "no."
One cannot forget the context in which the creeds were written -- and I cannot help but notice that your individualistic approach to religion bears a striking resemblance to the environment that spawned those heresies -- and which the Creeds were written to combat. I'm not saying that you're a heretic; however, you're suggesting that people can use their own judgements on how best to follow Christ. As a member of the Episcopal Church, I have seen at first hand the damage that abandonment of the Creeds, and the adoption of "personal faith" does -- both to the Church, and to individual believers.