While Evangelicals reject Roman Catholic ecclesiology—including magisterial authority and depositum fidei—their use of creedal terms like ὁμοούσιος (consubstantial) and hypostatic union risks conflating ecclesial interpretations with the apostolic teaching “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Though Scripture’s narrative-doxological witness to Christ’s deity (John 1:1–18; Colossians 1:15–20) resists systematic retrojection, creeds impose metaphysical frameworks absent from biblical texts. This mirrors Catholic doctrinal development through mediated revelation, wherein ecclesial authority progressively clarifies revelation, raising critical questions: If creeds are unnecessary for salvation (sola fide), how can they bind orthodoxy? Does their functional authority erode sola scriptura?
Historically, creeds like Nicaea’s ὁμοούσιος countered heresies (e.g., Arianism) but introduced non-scriptural philosophical language. Similarly, Chalcedon’s hypostatic union systematized Christology beyond the New Testament’s pluriform testimony. While Evangelicals reject John Henry Newman’s view of doctrinal development as Spirit-guided amplification, figures like Carl Trueman defend creeds as “normed tradition” essential for coherence, and Kevin Vanhoozer grants them “irreversible normativity” as secondary authorities. Such reliance creates hermeneutical dissonance, as seen in retroactive Trinitarian harmonizations of Matthew 28:19 or 2.00 Corinthians 13:14 using later perichoresis metaphysics. Critics like Peter Enns warn against flattening Scripture’s diversity into creedal uniformity, while Matthew Levering’s Catholic ressourcement theology—tradition unveiling Scripture’s sensus plenior—exposes proximity between Evangelical and Catholic hermeneutics.
Soteriologically, the thief on the cross (Luke 23:43) exemplifies salvific faith without creedal knowledge, yet Evangelicals often treat Nicene adherence as a quasi-sacramental requirement for church membership. This blurs apostolic doctrine (ἀποστολικὴ διδασκαλία) and post-biblical dogma, conflating Scripture’s affirmations (e.g., Christ’s pre-existence in John 1:1) with later creedal articulations (e.g., ὁμοούσιος). The result risks reducing sola fide to a notional commitment overshadowed by dogmatic subscription, echoing Catholicism’s fusion of faith and magisterial assent.
To resolve this, scholars propose frameworks preserving sola scriptura. John Webster prioritizes Scripture’s ontological primacy over creedal Wirkungsgeschichte (history of effects), framing creeds as provisional “ruled readings.” Katherine Sonderegger advocates “creedal humility,” viewing councils as fallible summaries resisting absolutization. Vern Poythress suggests creeds as “subordinate standards” guiding exegesis without usurping scriptural authority. However, challenges persist: Webster’s model risks ecclesiological vagueness, while Poythress’ “multiperspectivalism” retains circularity in privileging certain interpretations.
Evangelicals must distinguish doctrine (apostolic teaching) from dogma (ecclesial formulae) to uphold Reformation distinctives. Creeds should function as ministerial descriptors, not magisterial arbiters of orthodoxy or ecclesial belonging. By reaffirming Scripture’s sufficiency and sola fide’s primacy, Protestants avoid assimilating into a Catholic-adjacent paradigm of mediated authority. Reanchoring orthodoxy in Scripture’s inspired ontology—while affirming creeds as historically contextualized articulations—safeguards the unmediated grace central to the Reformation, preventing tradition from overshadowing the solas that define Evangelical theology’s core identity. Failure risks undermining Protestantism’s theological raison d’être, trading Scripture’s final authority for a quasi-Catholic dependency on ecclesial tradition.