When it comes to the history of the church, most Christians swing to one extreme or the other.
On the one hand, some believers look to church history as carrying a significant amount of authority. In particular, certain creeds have been elevated by different groups of Christians to the point where they carry a great deal of power. The Apostles' Creed is one of these. Another is the Westminster Confession, which some Reformed and Presbyterian groups look to for much direction.
On the other hand, other believers reject church history as having any sort of authority. While they may look to some more modern creeds for direction, in general they simply take a "It's me and my bible" approach. These folks are generally ignorant of church history and don't care that they are. Many Baptist and non-denominational groups, for example, fall into this category.
Both positions fail.
There is a better way. We can learn a great deal from church history, both the good and the bad. While some decisions and creeds are positive, others are most decidedly negative. What do we do with this? What we do is look for the good.
As far as church history follows scripture, then we should look to learn from it. While it does not carry the same weight as scripture, where it is faithful to the bible we ought to carefully consider it. Additionally, we should treat it as though it carries authority - but only when faithful to the bible.
We can and must also learn from the myriad mistakes in church history. In particular, we cannot ever forget all the times the church has harmed, persecuted, and even murdered all in the name of "faith."
In summary, anywhere church history, especially in the creeds, does follow scripture, then we should be following it. This is because, obviously, when we do so we will be obeying the bible.
Let's avoid both extremes. This is a situation where the middle position is best.
