What are the essentials of the genuine Christian faith?

[37818]

This is at issue.

Only where tradition is contrary or different from the plain teaching of holy scripture. And then only in matters of interpretation which are not essentials to the genuine Christian faith.

We disagree both on the "plain teaching" and what are the essentials.

[Truthseeker]

:gasp: Dare we attempt to improve on Mere Christianity?:swoon:

[Thoughtful Monk]

I'm missing the context of the OP so at the risk of being totally off base, I'll respond...

What I view as the essentials are:

• God exists as a Trinity
• He is Creator and Sustainer of all that is seen and unseen.
• Jesus Christ was incarnate as fully God and fully man.
• Jesus Christ paid for my sins by His sacrifice on the cross (aka Substitutionary Atonement)
• On the third day, He was bodily Resurrected from grave. He later ascended to Heaven and is seated at the right hand of God.
• The Bible is God's revelation to man. It is inerrant in the original manuscripts. It is His only written revelation and needs no addition.

I think that's all I would consider essential.

[JonathanL]

I would add to TM's list as follows.

• God exists as a Trinity
• He is Creator and Sustainer of all that is seen and unseen.
• Jesus Christ was incarnate as fully God and fully man.
• Jesus Christ paid for my sins by His sacrifice on the cross (aka Substitutionary Atonement)
• On the third day, He was bodily Resurrected from grave. He later ascended to Heaven and is seated at the right hand of God.
• The Return of Christ to judge and rule over all men.
• The resurrection of all dead Christians and the transforming of our bodies to a glorified state.
• The Final Judgement.
• The Bible is God's revelation to man. It is authorative in all it teaches. It is His only written revelation and needs no addition.

Anyone who denies the return of Christ, the future resurrection of the saints or that there will be a final judgement are IMO outside the fold of Christian orthodoxy.


The last point I'm a bit hesitant about. I'm not sure what TM means by "needs no addition", so I can't affirm or deny it until he expounds on it.

ETA: Made a little amendation to the list.

[KingsGambit]

I don't view inerrancy as an essential worth breaking fellowship over given how confusing the word can be. I prefer to say that the Bible is authoritative in what it teaches.

[JonathanL]

I don't view inerrancy as an essential worth breaking fellowship over given how confusing the word can be. I prefer to say that the Bible is authoritative in what it teaches.

That's probably a more apt description. I'm amending the list I stole from TM to reflect that.


I do hold to the inerrancy of the original manuscripts however, I just don't think it's an essential doctrine.

[Raphael]

The last point I'm a bit hesitant about. I'm not sure what TM means by "needs no addition", so I can't affirm or deny it until he expounds on it.

Probably referring to us Charismatics who believe that (along with the other gifts) that the gift of prophecy is still active today.

I won't drag this off into a debate on that topic, but to note that 99% of us Charismatics do not consider the prophetic gift as being the equivalent to adding to Scripture. (you have the whackos, but they are whackos, so ignore them)

[One Bad Pig]

I'm missing the context of the OP so at the risk of being totally off base, I'll respond...

What I view as the essentials are:

• God exists as a Trinity
• He is Creator and Sustainer of all that is seen and unseen.
• Jesus Christ was incarnate as fully God and fully man.
• Jesus Christ paid for my sins by His sacrifice on the cross (aka Substitutionary Atonement)
• On the third day, He was bodily Resurrected from grave. He later ascended to Heaven and is seated at the right hand of God.
• The Bible is God's revelation to man. It is inerrant in the original manuscripts. It is His only written revelation and needs no addition.

I think that's all I would consider essential.

37818 thinks that Jesus had two natures before his incarnation, and believes that Jesus was not begotten of the Father, but is unoriginate. I believe that a correct Christology is essential, and his is manifestly not.

[37818]

37818 thinks that Jesus had two natures before his incarnation, and believes that Jesus was not begotten of the Father, but is unoriginate. I believe that a correct Christology is essential, and his is manifestly not.

First, please explain how either of those two interpretations contradicts any essential of the Christian faith.
Secondly, these are two issues, not simply one.


The Son of God as God is coeternal with God the Father.
". . . understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." -- Isaiah 43:10, 11.
God is not begotten.

All appearances of the LORD was always by way of the Son of God (John 1:18 NKJV; Luke 10:22). The invisible in nature is reveled by the one who also has a visible nature.

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the one LORD God (Mark 12:29).

[Paprika]

:gasp: Dare we attempt to improve on Mere Christianity?:swoon:

As I recall it makes no mention of the Resurrection. That's hardly mere Christianity.

[Paprika]

i would add to tm's list as follows.
Apostle's creed

tl;dr, ftfy.

[JonathanL]

tl;dr, ftfy.

[Thoughtful Monk]

I would add to TM's list as follows.

• God exists as a Trinity
• He is Creator and Sustainer of all that is seen and unseen.
• Jesus Christ was incarnate as fully God and fully man.
• Jesus Christ paid for my sins by His sacrifice on the cross (aka Substitutionary Atonement)
• On the third day, He was bodily Resurrected from grave. He later ascended to Heaven and is seated at the right hand of God.
• The Return of Christ to judge and rule over all men.
• The resurrection of all dead Christians and the transforming of our bodies to a glorified state.
• The Final Judgement.
• The Bible is God's revelation to man. It is authorative in all it teaches. It is His only written revelation and needs no addition.

Anyone who denies the return of Christ, the future resurrection of the saints or that there will be a final judgement are IMO outside the fold of Christian orthodoxy.


The last point I'm a bit hesitant about. I'm not sure what TM means by "needs no addition", so I can't affirm or deny it until he expounds on it.

ETA: Made a little amendation to the list.

I like your additions. I'm not sure I would add much more. At some point, non-essentials start creeping in and try to be an essential.

"Needs no addition" = I'm trying to prevent something like the Book of Mormon being elevated to the same level as Scripture.

[KingsGambit]

"Needs no addition" = I'm trying to prevent something like the Book of Mormon being elevated to the same level as Scripture.

So basically that the canon is closed? I agree with that (though I'm not interested in debating anybody over it right now).

[Paprika]

"Needs no addition" = I'm trying to prevent something like the Book of Mormon being elevated to the same level as Scripture.

Why should that be necessary? The ancient Christians had no end of false 'gospels' but as far as I can tell there was no creedal statement on what the Scriptures include or exclude.