Add new comment

Though creeds, as Pelikan states, are beneficial for universality of the faith, I personally do not think that having one creed that crosses all time and cultural boundaries has much merit. I think this way because, seeing as a creed is presented in response to clarifying what proper belief looks like, each set of times and cultures may need clarifying in different ways. Also on the same topic, creeds would need to be translated into different languages and, as we have seen in bible translations, some languages may not define the word quite as it was originally understood in the original language. On the other hand, Christianity is the only world religion that has many creeds, so maybe the making of new creeds is not the answer. Although a unified creed for all time and all of the worldwide church would be nice, there are already many creeds and some may not represent the Christian faith as well as others. A creed must be in response to an issue or argument that is against what the church believes to be true, so in order to draw the line in the sand there must be a creed must be in place. To eliminate the vast number of creeds one could reword or retranslate an already constructed creed, but it would be better to write a new one to ensure alinement with what the church also believes and what the Bible states. To farther the importance of the revamping or the recreating of creeds is to answer the question of "who do you say I am?" as Jesus asks over and over again. People though time and culture will always confuse or create hereditary believe by answering Jesus' question without alining it to what the Bible says or what the Church believes. In a way the Church must be proactive in adjusting their creedal statements to avoid possible culturally provoked heretical beliefs. As Pelikan stated "the 'you say' in that question is the culture in which we live". By this statement Pelikan is saying that Jesus' question must be answered again and again by the Church because culture is continuously changing.