Your comments about creeds work equally well in a discussion about the Constitution -- about which John Adams famously stated, "Our constitution was made only for moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Creeds, like the Constitution, are meaningful to those who are a priori obedient to the principles underlying the creed; and mere obstacles to those who are not obedient to them.
St. Paul discusses the distinction at length, in his Epistle to the Romans.
Interestingly stated. (I think that quote was from Madison, not Adams, but I could be wrong.) The written code has been nailed to the cross, with the law of God now written on our hearts. When we are truly following Christ, neither a written code nor a creed are necessary. But I'll put my faith in the inerrant Word over a human-authored creed any day. Insofar as a creed is viewed as a fallible set of opinions, I don't have a problem with them. It's using them as an inerrant "shorthand" test of fellowship that bothers me. That is what divides, not the truths that may or may not be expressed in them. This topic (and Paul's treatment of it) relates to the one of "
What makes sin sin?" God bless, Kevin Harper