For, if the creeds can’t be authoritatively correct because they aren’t scripture, how do you know your interpretation is correct and authoritative, and by what authority do you judge differing positions to be wrong? After all, your interpretation isn’t scripture.
If this argument is used AGAINST the argument that Sola Scripture can’t be true…then how do we know the Creeds are a correct interpretation, and why is THEIR interpretation any more correct than anyone else’s? Inherently, we have to determine what something means, otherwise what is written has no meaning at all. The sentence “the dog ran to the fence” has absolutely no meaning at all, unless we interpret what a dog is, what running is, what a fence is, and the prepositions that go along with it. Interpretation is REQUIRED for us to understand. You yourself said that’s what you believe the creeds are – “correct interpretations of scripture contained in short statements of faith.” If you believe the creeds are authoritative, then you inherently, based on your own definition, believe that interpretations CAN be authoritative. If that’s the case – why can’t MINE be authoritative? Why can’t yours? Why can’t anyone’s?- - - - -
The Catholic Church claims its authority from Scripture, Tradition and the teaching Magisterium. Over the centuries, many people have rejected this authority in good conscience and have viewed Christianity in many alternative ways. Protestantism, the main branch of those who reject this authority, has a problem with their "Sola Scripture" (Scripture Only) authority, as can be seen above.
Is there any wonder that there are approximately 38,000 denominations of Christianity in the world, all claiming "the truth"? If the Christian god is true, his method of communication needs a little work.