https://www.smalltowntheologian.org/for-those-who-argue-against-creeds/
Those who reject Confessionalism are fools we're told by this Small Town Theologian. I'm afraid his arguments were less than convincing. In fact I would throw the 'fool' label right back at him.
Shirk stretches the Scriptures to the point of breaking when he tries to extrapolate creedalism from texts like Nehemiah 8. And perhaps he is unaware that a Roman Catholic apologist could have a field day with his arguments out of Acts 8.
A bare 'the Bible speaks for itself' kind of common sense appeal is certainly wanting, and there are those guilty of it. But the alternative is not to embrace full-throated Confessionalism either. Shirk's presentation is a case of false dilemma.
Creeds and Confessions are worthwhile – as tools, not chains. They are tools or guides that can aid in the way a map does for a journey. When used as absolute standards, they functionally usurp and replace Scripture. It's something I have encountered repeatedly when interacting with Confessional Presbyterians over the years. Their claims of Sola Scriptura are empty and bogus.
Explanation, exposition, and exegesis are not the same thing.
He argues the standards explain the sense of Scripture. But functionally, that's not how they operate. They are the standard and yet they don't all agree, they contain errors, and they have been in some cases modified over time. And as I have argued elsewhere, some of the modifications such as the 1789 American revision to the Westminster Confession have generated theological dilemmas and internal contradictions which are still unresolved.
And most important, the Confessions must be interpreted which adds another political layer to the discussion.
When many creedal elements are arbitrarily set aside – such as the rest of the material put out by the Nicene Council, or certain elements within the Westminster tradition, the standards become not so much a means of articulation but a means of wielding power by ecclesiastical bodies. They are selectively used to govern – which is tantamount to episcopacy as the body of clerics holds the authority, not the document in question, and certainly not the Scriptures.
Additionally there is another elephant in the room – the issue of Progressive Orthodoxy. Confessionalists embrace the concept but want to arrest it at a 'confessional' moment in time that is wed to a historical narrative. If the narrative is found wanting, then the argument for 'stopping' the progress (as it were) collapses. Progressive Orthodoxy has a problem with timeless truth – something Primitivism tries (and yet often fails) to recapture.
And as is so often the case, the real issues are side-stepped and obscured and there's an attempt to ridicule the supposed small-mindedness of those who reject their arguments. But one needs to look more closely at them and at the foundations upon which they rest. They are made of sand. The Magisterial Reformation was not a return to primitive Christianity. It was not a Second Pentecost (though it's functionally treated this way). And when one considers the subsequent history – as one moves through the sixteenth and seventeenth century the story only becomes uglier. To argue that the creedal symbols produced by 'divines' of this tumultuous era are authoritative for all time is bordering on the absurd and is rightly rejected by any serious student of the New Testament.
This is not to say these documents are of no value. They are in fact tremendous works and yet deeply flawed at points. Those who ignore them are foolish and yet those who treat them as authoritative are even more misguided. It's not necessary for each new congregation to reinvent the wheel (so to speak) and draft a new constitution or confession. I wish to be clear, I am not speaking of denominations which have no Scriptural warrant to begin with, let alone the polity tools they employ to bind their schismatic endeavours together. The answer is not to keep re-writing confessions and creeds or to adopt them wholesale, but rather to utilize them sparingly and with wisdom and to re-think the nature of theology and doctrine and how churches need to bind themselves together and delineate themselves from the world. Creeds and Confessions have been born of controversy and so often today they are utilized in contexts divorced from those controversies – often leading to confusion and even zealous but misguided stands on certain points – especially in the realm of epistemology.
I'm certain Shirk would roll his eyes at the notion of a church simply using something like the Apostle's Creed or even no specific symbol. And yet I must also ask – just what is it that holds the Church together? Will these confessional forms suffice? Can they do the work of the Holy Spirit or replace Him? Many would argue they are means used by the Holy Spirit.
Are they? Where can I read about that? Where do the Scriptures teach us about such man-generated means? When we adopt extra-Scriptural means, we necessarily reduce the ones that are given and detract from their meaning and import. The Spirit holds the Church together – not some man-made dusty form relying (often) on misguided assumptions such as is the case with Westminster and its context of the English Civil War. Despite its many errors, it's a useful document, a useful tool, but it should not be treated as authoritative or as a standard. Those who do so are guilty of schism. When I'm denied communion because I won't subscribe to a denominational creed from the Magisterial Reformation era – then that body is guilty of elitism, factionalism, and schism.
Shirk is engaged in reductionism – he's oversimplifying the issues at stake in an attempt to explain away some real problems. There is (to say the least) an over-abundance of such articles floating around and with very few willing to engage them and challenge their assumptions on Biblical grounds.