Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 7 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 7
Bercot says early Christians held to “simple theology” like the Apostles’ Creed and that Christians expanded creeds mainly because “there are people we want to exclude from God’s kingdom”; where do you see that impulse to exclude operating today, and how does it relate to disputes and splits over language “not language of Scripture”?
Another way to ask: If creeds got longer mainly because people wanted to keep others out of God’s kingdom, where do you see that same “exclude them” mindset today? How does it connect to splits over special wording that isn’t straight from Scripture?

Direct Answer The transcript suggests the impulse to exclude shows up when Christians demand ever-more-specific doctrinal language beyond Scripture in order to keep certain believers out, and that drive almost inevitably produces arguments, anger, and church splits.

Support from Transcript:

  • Bercot says early churches held “a simple theology… nothing more than the essentials,” like what we call the Apostles’ Creed: “That was it. Those were the essentials.”
  • He asks why it isn’t still enough: “It’s because there are people we want to exclude from God’s kingdom who believe everything that’s in that creed.”
  • He describes the historical pattern: Christians “amplified that creed… to exclude this group… amplified it again… to exclude that group.”
  • He says the result was Galatians 5 behavior: “strife, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, and factions.”
  • He pinpoints the root problem: adding “language that was not language of Scripture,” trying to speak “more precisely than the New Testament writers said,” which “invariably” creates divisions.
Discussion Follow-ups What extra “precision tests” function like modern creeds in your circles, and do they mainly protect obedience—or mainly protect boundaries?