The Apostles' Creed skips almost everything Jesus actually taught. Is it Christianity's greatest summary — or its greatest shortcut?

• IK

  Iris K.1d ago

  honestly this question cracked something open for me. grew up reciting the creed every sunday and it never once occurred to me that Jesus literally said nothing in it. not a single teaching. not feed the poor, love your enemy, forgive seventy times seven. nothing. and we called it the faith. that's worth sitting with.

  187Reply
• L_

  Liam _x19h ago

  my grandfather died last year. lifelong churchgoer. knew the creed cold. couldn't tell you three things Jesus actually said. i don't blame him — he was taught what he was taught. but i do think about the creed every time i visit his grave and wonder if we handed people a skeleton and called it a body.

  176Reply
• E

  Elena11h ago

  I converted from atheism in my late twenties. You know what drew me in? Not the creed. Not propositional statements about resurrection. It was reading the actual words of Jesus. The Beatitudes. The prodigal son. 'Love your enemies.' That stuff grabbed me by the throat. The creed would have meant nothing to me at that stage. So when people say it's the irreducible core, I want to say: irreducible for whom?

  161Reply
• I

  Iris1d ago

  The gap between 'born of the virgin Mary' and 'suffered under Pontius Pilate' is literally where Jesus LIVED. Thirty years. Imagine writing a biography of Abraham Lincoln and jumping from his birth in Kentucky to his assassination with the sentence 'and then he died.' We'd call that a bad biography. For some reason we call it the Apostles' Creed.

  155Reply
• P

  Priya6h ago

  Here's what I can't shake: in Matthew 25 Jesus talks about the judgment and He doesn't say 'did you believe the right things about me?' He says did you feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisoner. Straight discipleship content. No creed would prepare you for that question. And if THAT'S what Jesus says judgment looks like, maybe the thing we built our confessional faith on is missing the main point on purpose.

  144Reply
• O

  Omar2d ago

  The creed is a statement of WHO Jesus is, not a discipleship manual. That's not a bug, it's a design choice. The early church wasn't careless — they were precise. The creed answers the heretics who were denying the incarnation and resurrection. It was never meant to be a sermon. Read it in context or stop complaining about it.

  143Reply
• N

  Nina2h ago

  I teach the creed to teenagers in confirmation class and I genuinely have mixed feelings. By the time we're done, they can defend the incarnation and resurrection. They can tell you why it matters that Jesus was 'truly God and truly man.' They cannot tell you what Jesus said about money, or enemies, or anxiety, or prayer. Am I doing something wrong? Maybe. Is the creed doing something wrong? Also maybe.

  138Reply
• A

  Avery1d ago

  If the creed represents the 'non-negotiables,' then I find it very telling what got left out. The Kingdom of God — Jesus's central message — is not in there. His repeated call to repentance is not in there. His command to make disciples is not in there. His warnings about wealth are not in there. So either those things aren't non-negotiable, or whoever wrote the creed had a very specific theological agenda.

  129Reply
• D

  Diego3h ago

  The creed is sufficient for WHAT specifically? That's the question nobody's answering cleanly. Sufficient for orthodoxy? Probably. Sufficient for discipleship? No. Sufficient for salvation? Depends on your soteriology and now we have a whole different argument. Let's be precise about what we're actually asking.

  119Reply
• Z

  Zara1d ago

  Can we stop pretending the Apostles' Creed was written by the apostles? It wasn't. The name is a marketing decision from a much later era. It evolved over centuries and reached something like its current form around the 8th century. So when people defend it like it's divinely inspired, I need them to understand they're defending a committee document from medieval Europe.

  117Reply
• LR

  Liam R.1d ago

  I want to push back on the person above. The resurrection without the Sermon on the Mount gives you a cosmic transaction with no obligations attached. You know what that produces? Exactly the American church we have right now. People who believe the right things and live however they want because 'grace covers it.' The creed as a COMPLETE statement of Christianity is genuinely dangerous.

  112Reply
• TM

  Theo M.7h ago

  The evangelical who thinks their tradition keeps Jesus's teachings central — go look at the average evangelical church's budget priorities, political alignments, and pastoral content. 'Central' is doing a lot of work in that sentence.

  102Reply
• D

  Diego1d ago

  What's wild to me is that the creed doesn't even mention love. Not once. The two greatest commandments — love God, love neighbor — aren't in there. Jesus said ALL the law and prophets hang on those two. But our historic statement of faith? Crickets.

  98Reply
• R

  Riley14h ago

  Actually disagree with that framing pretty strongly. Jesus's teachings aren't an alternative to the cross. They're organically connected. He taught the Kingdom and then embodied it by dying. You can't separate them without losing both. The creed creates the exact split you're worried about — doctrine over discipleship — by structurally encoding the split into Christianity's central confession.

  93Reply
• O

  Omar16h ago

  This post is exactly the kind of thing that sounds profound but leads people away from orthodox Christianity toward some therapeutic moralistic version where Jesus is basically a really wise life coach who died for unclear reasons. The creed protects something. The moment you make 'but what about His teachings' the center instead of the cross and resurrection, you're writing a different religion.

  88Reply
• C

  Casey1d ago

  ok but most people who recite the creed don't have all that liturgical context. most people recite it and go home and live like pagans with better vocabulary. so maybe the foundation analogy backfires on you

  84Reply
• NM

  Noah M.3h ago

  Matthew 25 doesn't negate the resurrection. Both are in the Bible. If you want to make the creed into the villain of Christian ethics, that's a choice, but it's not honest exegesis — it's picking a fight with a document that was never trying to be what you're demanding it be. The creed isn't the enemy of Jesus's teaching. Laziness and cheap grace are the enemy. Stop blaming the creed.

  83Reply
• AS

  Alex S.1d ago

  Nope. Hard disagree. The Sermon on the Mount doesn't save you. The resurrection does.

  76Reply
• M

  Morgan21h ago

  The comment above is technically accurate but functionally misleading. The creed's core content — incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension — is traceable to the very earliest Christian confession formulas. Paul quotes what appears to be a pre-existing creedal statement in 1 Corinthians 15. The form evolved, but the substance is ancient. Don't use historical precision as a backdoor to dismissal.

  71Reply
• M

  Maya7h ago

  if you think the creed is sufficient christianity and also dont feed anyone or love any enemies then yeah i think the creed failed you. not as a document. as a formation tool. it wasnt enough. maybe thats the real question here — not is the creed wrong, but is it enough to actually form disciples

  67Reply
• OL

  Omar L.1d ago

  I've been a liturgical Christian (Anglican) for twenty years. The creed is not and was never meant to be the whole package. We have lectionaries, liturgies, the Daily Office, the Eucharist — the creed is ONE piece of a much larger formation system. Criticizing the creed for not including Jesus's teachings is like criticizing a house's foundation for not being the whole house. Foundational doesn't mean complete.

  61Reply
• RL

  Reese L.4h ago

  Answer to the teacher above: YES you're doing something wrong. The creed is an entry point, not a finish line. If your confirmation class ends with propositional accuracy and zero engagement with the actual content of Jesus's life, that's a curriculum problem, not a creed problem. Don't blame the tool for how you're using it.

  59Reply
• I

  Iris13h ago

  Nicene Creed mentions Jesus 'became incarnate' and 'became man' — and still jumps to suffering and death. Both major historic creeds do this. This isn't accidental. The creeds were written in response to specific heresies (Docetism, Arianism, Gnosticism) not as life manuals. Applying modern expectations to ancient documents is a category error, not a theological insight.

  54Reply
• OB

  Omar B.9h ago

  This is why I think low-church evangelical Christianity has something to offer here that gets overlooked. We don't rely on the creed the same way. We put the actual words of Scripture — including Jesus's actual teachings — at the center every week. Yeah, we lose some theological precision sometimes. But at least people know what Jesus said.

  48Reply
• O

  Omar1d ago

  You all are overthinking this. The creed is a baptismal confession, not systematic theology. It was used when someone entered the faith to affirm the non-negotiables. Nobody at a baptism is expecting a complete ethics course. This is really basic church history.

  44Reply

More debates people can't stop arguing about