Really appreciate this video! As a low church Baptist, the creeds always struck me as odd and I never knew how to think about them. Seeing them as early theology really unlocks something in my brain that makes better sense. Thanks Mike and Mark!

Really helpful! Thank you for this!

A very curious and worthwhile video.... Creeds and confessions are fine if they appear in the inspired scriptures. Typically, when people think “creeds” they nearly always think 'creeds' such as Nicene, Athanasian and Apostles' Creeds. It's good to keep in mind that these creeds aren’t written under inspiration though. To say “we need no creed but the New Testament” I would think that statement applies primarily to those “founding church fathers'” creeds. Such creeds weren’t written under the inspiration of God’s Holy Spirit, thus we should actually be totally fine without them since God didn’t see reason to have them included in the inspired biblical canon. Why should we have to resort to creeds or anything outside the inspired scriptures to answer a question, especially, as we read 2 Timothy 3:16,17 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is PROFITABLE FOR DOCTRINE, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works"? Note; "thoroughly furnished” or as the English Standard Version says “that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” In other words, the bible is plenty enough and more than complete to answer, for example; “Who is Jesus?” (why wouldn’t it be) otherwise we may pushing into territory as the Mormons do with their Book of Mormon, adding to the scriptures, which is a scriptural “no, no.” (Revelation 22:18) If we NEED creeds to explain “Who is Jesus” might we be wiser to re-examine our thinking on “Who is Jesus”? It’s always best to start off and read, study and explain the bible without having “creed glasses” on, and use nothing more than inspired scripture, alone. I certainly disagree with, (and I’m not alone) with saying “the New Testament is not self interpreting.” (4:35) I was very surprised even to hear that said, especially in light of 2 Tim 3:16,17 just quoted above. It does happen too often that people prioritize uninspired creeds above Holy Spirit inspired scripture. I like and agree with the example of Philip and the Eunuch. May I add that Philip opened the inspired scriptures to Isaiah 53:7,8, thus using the bible of that day and not refering to uninspired creeds. Wouldn’t Philip also remind the eunuch of what Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 4:6 “not to go beyond what is written” in other words, use only the bible? I have found even the “new” issues and questions mentioned throughout the video are explained clearly from the scriptures alone, without the need of new creeds, although, yes, expounding a little is often helpful. Tradition is fine, but it is wise to remember there is a lot corrupt ‘tradition’ that has entered into Christendom over the centuries as well, so yes, it should still be examined, but not supersede the bible. Yes, we are blessed to have many resources for aid, I use them a-plenty! Still, the bottom line though, having numerous supplemental 'creeds' to endorse what we believe or to do so on just the bible without all of that extra 'baggage' - which is better? The inspired scriptures is the ultimate “go-to” source for answers. 2 Timothy 3:16

I see a Top Gun rewrite going on here: I feel the Need for Creed(s).

Nicene, Athanasian and Apostles' Creed. With them you are all set. Blessings

NO! To the state thing. This is exactly why I don't want the Bible taught in our state run schools. It sounds great, but in the end the state gets to say what it wants about the Scriptures.

Baptist not protestant. Did not break from Catholic Church. Always been there. Catholics named them baptist because they baptized believers. NOT BABIES.