Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What are the essentials of the genuine Christian faith?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by hedrick View Post
    I would go with a traditional definition of Christian as one who accepts Christ as Lord and Savior.
    It is a reasonable statement - but without having given fundamentals as a basis, the question arises: "Which Christ?" - Plenty of false Christs out there, and have been since before Paul paid his first visit to Rome it seems.
    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
    .
    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
    Scripture before Tradition:
    but that won't prevent others from
    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
    of the right to call yourself Christian.

    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      There is a difference between core doctrines and essential doctrines.

      1)Monotheism: Not essential - commitment to God alone - to the exclusion of all others - is enough.
      2)The Trinity: Essential.
      3)The Deity of Jesus: Essential.
      4)The Incarnation and the Virgin Birth Incarnation - essential.
      5): Not essential.
      6)The Resurrection: Essential.
      7)The Ascension: Essential.
      8)The Holy Spirit indwelling the Church: Essential.
      9)Corrupt Humanity: Not Essential.
      10)Justified by faith alone: Incorrect. Romans 2:13, 3:24, 5:9, [Galatians 3:11 - depending on interpretation], Titus 3:7, James 2:24 - among others.
      11)The Second Coming: Essential.
      12)Glory or Separation: Not essential.
      Is monotheism not a doctrine of Christ?(2 John 9)
      The Hypostatic Union, knowing the meaning of the term, no. But that Jesus being one Person having both a human nature and a divine nature cannot be denied, that truth is an essential.
      Glory or Separation is an essential. The interpretations are the nonessentials. Other words no Hindu reincarnation etc.
      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        There is a difference between core doctrines and essential doctrines.

        10)Justified by faith alone: Incorrect. Romans 2:13, 3:24, 5:9, [Galatians 3:11 - depending on interpretation], Titus 3:7, James 2:24 - among others.
        I disagree here. I will explain. Truth is not a matter of interpretation. Of course our understanding of truth always is. More later.
        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
          Is monotheism not a doctrine of Christ?(2 John 9)
          It doesn't seem that Paul had a problem with the concept of the existence of other gods. He denied that they were "by nature gods", but nonetheless acknowledged that there were other gods.
          The Hypostatic Union, knowing the meaning of the term, no. But that Jesus being one Person having both a human nature and a divine nature cannot be denied, that truth is an essential.
          Scriptural evidence for the union is scant, and largely based on interpretations of ambiguous statements. It isn't part of the Apostles' Creed.
          Glory or Separation is an essential. The interpretations are the nonessentials. Other words no Hindu reincarnation etc.
          I class it as a core doctrine, but not as an essential on the grounds that the believer's relationship with Christ is not impacted directly by not knowing of the matter. It BECOMES an essential where a contrary teaching is being promoted.
          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
          .
          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
          Scripture before Tradition:
          but that won't prevent others from
          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
          of the right to call yourself Christian.

          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
            I would add to TM's list as follows...
            I see a few problems with your list items, especially if the list was to be used to determine who is Christian or not. Personally, I find the Nicene Creed totally adequate for that purpose. 37818 would disagree as he rejects its central teaching, which is why he is testing you guys. (see OBP's post#8).

            Here is my critique, take it with a grain of salt...
            • God exists as a Trinity

              In what way? Economically? Ontologically? Both? In the Sabellian/Oneness sense? In the RCC sense? In the Eastern Orthodox sense? In Marcellus of Ancyra's sense?

              I consider belief in the "Trinity" as we now receive it as non essential to the Christian faith. That God the Father sent his pre-existent Son (who was begotten (born) by the Father in eternity, before all ages, and who was incarnated via the virgin Mary) to be the Saviour of the whole world tends to trump speculative theology in my eyes...so, if someone accepts the afore, I would include them in Christian fellowship...

              Into the 5th century and beyond, the Trinity as we understand it today had not been fully formulated (still isn't). For instance: debate amoungst the "mainstream" Christians concerning the status of the Holy Spirit went on for a very long time (and continues eg: the filioque). Concerning the Holy Spirit, several questions arose before and after the Council of Nicea...

              1. whether the Holy Spirit was a power (energia) or person (hypostasis).
              2. Which came first the Son or the Spirit?
              3. if a power: does it emanate from the Father alone, or from the Father and the Son (cp. Augustines mutual love), or from the Father through the Son.
              4. if a person: given the Holy Spirit was not begotten as was the Son, but comes forth from the Father, is it a direct creation of the Father, or a creation of the Father through the Son (cp. 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16), or something else (see John Damascene's discusion of ἀγένητον/γενητόν vs ἀγέννητον/γεννητόν),
              5. if a person and not a creation and not begotten, but comes forth from the Father: does the Holy Spirit have origin from the Father alone or as a consequence of the Son,
              6. if a person and not a creation and not begotten, but comes forth from the Father alone, is the Holy Spirit homoousios (consubstantial) with the Father.
              7. etc etc

            • He is Creator and Sustainer of all that is seen and unseen.

              I presume you mean Jesus? (cp. Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:3, John 1:3) Or do you include the Father? (cp. 1 Cor 8:6; Heb 1:2; Eph 3:9). In anycase the core essential belief is that the Father creates and sustains all things through the Son.

            • Jesus Christ was incarnate as fully God and fully man.

              The church lived without the belief for around 450 years onwards. The OOC (both miaphysites and monophysites) though considered orthodox Christians do not accept the verdict of Chalcedon. In anycase...

              Most "sunday school christians" get Chalcedon wrong! We have to differentiate the Son's hypostasis (person as a concrete reality) and his physis/ousia (nature/essence). His divine nature/essence did not change on the incarnation. However, he accumulated humanity (as a physis/ousia) to his hypostasis. Thus, whatever he did after the incarnation he did as a single hypostasis (cp. John 12:45; 14:7). The two natures cannot be seperated from the energies (energia) of his hypostasis. (basically the diaphysites (us), the miaphysites & monophysites agree on the last three points).

            • Jesus Christ paid for my sins by His sacrifice on the cross (aka Substitutionary Atonement).

              God the Father sent his pre-existent Son, who became incarnated as Jesus Christ, to be saviour of the whole world (cp. 1 Tim 2:1-6; 4:9-11). It is upto us to accept or reject the free gift.

            • 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 Son died to redeem us from iniquity (Titus 2:14). He did not see corruption/decay (Acts 2:31) but was resurrected by his Father (Rom 4:24; 10:9), was seen amoungst men (1 Cor 15:6) and ascended to heaven where he is seated at the right hand of God his Father (Eph 1:20). All things have been made subject to the Son until all his enemies have been destroyed. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. When all things are made subject to Him, then the Son will subject himself to Him who put all things under Him, so that God his Father may be all in all. (1 Cor 15:24-28).

            • The Return of Christ to judge and rule over all men.

              Jesus said he judges no one (John 3:17; 8:15; 12:47). We condemn or reprieve ourselves at the second resurrection. According to Revelation 20:12 we are judged by our works. (also see James 2:14-28). Those that are raised in the first resurrection are not subject to judgement.

            • The resurrection of all dead Christians and the transforming of our bodies to a glorified state.

              (?) All men & women will be resurrected bodily, some to eternal life, others to the condemnation of the lake of fire.

            • The Final Judgement.

              cp. Dan 12:2 with Rev 20:12-15.

              The Christian hope is that those found in the Book of Life will experience a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. And there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things will have passed away. (Rev 21:1-4).

            • 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.

              Which canon? There are several of them.
            Last edited by apostoli; 08-21-2015, 09:11 AM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by apostoli View Post
              I see a few problems with your list items, especially if the list was to be used to determine who is Christian or not. Personally, I find the Nicene Creed totally adequate for that purpose. 37818 would disagree as he rejects its central teaching, which is why he is testing you guys. (see OBP's post#8).

              Here is my critique, take it with a grain of salt...

              God exists as a Trinity

              In what way? Economically? Ontologically? Both? In the Sabellian/Oneness sense? In the RCC sense? In the Eastern Orthodox sense? In Marcellus of Ancyra's sense?

              I consider belief in the "Trinity" as we now receive it as non essential to the Christian faith.
              You're in disagreement with nearly all Trinitarians on this. Is has been debated so intensely precisely because it IS viewed as essential.
              That God the Father sent his pre-existent Son (who was begotten (born) by the Father in eternity, before all ages, and who was incarnated via the virgin Mary) to be the Saviour of the whole world tends to trump speculative theology in my eyes...so, if someone accepts the afore, I would include them in Christian fellowship...

              Into the 5th century and beyond, the Trinity as we understand it today had not been fully formulated (still isn't). For instance: debate amoungst the "mainstream" Christians concerning the status of the Holy Spirit went on for a very long time (and continues eg: the filioque).
              The Trinity was fully settled by the Second Ecumenical Council in 381. That is why the Orthodox Church rejected so vehemently the filioque.

              Concerning the Holy Spirit, several questions arose before and after the Council of Nicea...

              1. whether the Holy Spirit was a power (energia) or person (hypostasis).
              2. Which came first the Son or the Spirit?
              3. if a power: does it emanate from the Father alone, or from the Father and the Son (cp. Augustines mutual love), or from the Father through the Son.
              4. if a person: given the Holy Spirit was not begotten as was the Son, but comes forth from the Father, is it a direct creation of the Father, or a creation of the Father through the Son (cp. 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16), or something else (see John Damascene's discusion of ἀγένητον/γενητόν vs ἀγέννητον/γεννητόν),
              5. if a person and not a creation and not begotten, but comes forth from the Father: does the Holy Spirit have origin from the Father alone or as a consequence of the Son,
              6. if a person and not a creation and not begotten, but comes forth from the Father alone, is the Holy Spirit homoousios (consubstantial) with the Father.
              7. etc etc
              6, answered affirmatively, is the only orthodox position. I don't care much about the myriad ways the heterodox get it wrong (2 only makes sense if the Holy Spirit is a creation).

              I don't really have time to go through all the rest.
              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • #37
                Trinity.jpg

                A relatively simple explanation of the Trinity

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  You're in disagreement with nearly all Trinitarians on this. Is has been debated so intensely precisely because it IS viewed as essential.

                  The Trinity was fully settled by the Second Ecumenical Council in 381. That is why the Orthodox Church rejected so vehemently the filioque.
                  Actually, the Constantinople-Nicean creed of 381CE does not define the Holy Spirit as homoousios with the Father. So the definition of the Trinity via the creeds remains incomplete.

                  The 3rd council at Ephesus in 431CE rejected the Constantinople Creed and reaffirmed the Creed of 325CE. So all that is required is belief in the existence of the Holy Spirit...

                  Of interest: The 3rd Council of Ephesus of 475CE, attended by 500 plus bishops (including the Patriarch of Antioch and the Exarch of Ephesus) condemned the Council of Chalcedon and particularly the Tome of Leo. The list goes on...

                  The Trinity was never debated in ancient times. The economy was accepted by most. The ontology, ahhh, that is a different story. The status of the Son of God and the Spirit were the focus of the main controversies...

                  Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  6, answered affirmatively, is the only orthodox position. I don't care much about the myriad ways the heterodox get it wrong (2 only makes sense if the Holy Spirit is a creation).

                  I don't really have time to go through all the rest.
                  No worries. I just gave a sample of what was discussed over the centuries...I didn't expect a reply to them...

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    A relatively simple explanation of the Trinity
                    Except it doesn't highlight the fact that the Son's & Spirit's Godhead (theotēs=state of being God) is subject to each being homoousios (consubstantial) with the Father. Only the Father is God of himself (autotheos), the Son and Spirit are God in themselves (cp. John 14:7-11). Might seem pedantic, but the "one God" refers to the Father's ousia (essence), retained by the Father and imprinted upon the Son (cp. Heb 1:3) and the Spirit. Understanding this helps in understanding how the one God is three distinct persons (hypostases), and the three persons (hypostases) are not three Gods.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      And again - the only part of the issue of the Trinity that is spelt out in scripture is the fact that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each God, and in combination are God. None of the remaining issues - including co-equality - can be substantiated by any call to scripture.
                      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                      .
                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                      Scripture before Tradition:
                      but that won't prevent others from
                      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                      of the right to call yourself Christian.

                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                        Actually, the Constantinople-Nicean creed of 381CE does not define the Holy Spirit as homoousios with the Father. So the definition of the Trinity via the creeds remains incomplete.
                        Literally, no. However, it categorizes the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son. It would be absurd to assume that it did not consider the Holy Spirit to be homoosious with the Father and the Son.
                        The 3rd council at Ephesus in 431CE rejected the Constantinople Creed and reaffirmed the Creed of 325CE. So all that is required is belief in the existence of the Holy Spirit...
                        I don't recall that. Could you show me the evidence?
                        Of interest: The 3rd Council of Ephesus of 475CE, attended by 500 plus bishops (including the Patriarch of Antioch and the Exarch of Ephesus) condemned the Council of Chalcedon and particularly the Tome of Leo. The list goes on...
                        This council's decisions were subsequently rejected, at least in part because it upheld the "Robber Synod."
                        The Trinity was never debated in ancient times. The economy was accepted by most. The ontology, ahhh, that is a different story. The status of the Son of God and the Spirit were the focus of the main controversies...
                        What was debated was Christology (the nature(s) of Christ, then the monothelite controversy).
                        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                        sigpic
                        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                          Except it doesn't highlight the fact that the Son's & Spirit's Godhead (theotēs=state of being God) is subject to each being homoousios (consubstantial) with the Father. Only the Father is God of himself (autotheos), the Son and Spirit are God in themselves (cp. John 14:7-11). Might seem pedantic, but the "one God" refers to the Father's ousia (essence), retained by the Father and imprinted upon the Son (cp. Heb 1:3) and the Spirit. Understanding this helps in understanding how the one God is three distinct persons (hypostases), and the three persons (hypostases) are not three Gods.
                          It is rank heresy to say that the Father's essence is "imprinted upon the Son and the Holy Spirit." It denies the immutability of the Son and Holy Spirit.
                          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                          sigpic
                          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            And again - the only part of the issue of the Trinity that is spelt out in scripture is the fact that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each God, and in combination are God. None of the remaining issues - including co-equality - can be substantiated by any call to scripture.
                            I quite disagree, but don't have time to get into this.
                            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                            sigpic
                            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                              It is rank heresy to say that the Father's essence is "imprinted upon the Son and the Holy Spirit." It denies the immutability of the Son and Holy Spirit.
                              Take it up with the author of the biblical book of Hebrews. Concerning the Son, imu, that is exactly what he implies in the Greek. See Hebrews 1:3 "χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ".

                              Also, I fail to see how it denies the immutability of the Son and the Spirit, if anything it enforces it!

                              Originally posted by ONE Bad Pig
                              Originally posted by apostoli
                              The 3rd council at Ephesus in 431CE rejected the Constantinople Creed and reaffirmed the Creed of 325CE. So all that is required is belief in the existence of the Holy Spirit...
                              I don't recall that. Could you show me the evidence?
                              There has been debate about whether the 381CE creed was rejected, mainly by the RCC who argues it wasn't, so as to give weight to their insertion of the filioque. The actual canon does read as if all creeds issued after 325CE are defunct, which would include the creed of 381CE. Anyway, have a read of CANON VII here, it gives the full argument.

                              Wiki notes "The Council declared it "unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa".[2] It quoted the Nicene Creed as adopted by the First Council of Nicaea in 325, not as added to and modified by the First Council of Constantinople in 381".
                              Last edited by apostoli; 08-21-2015, 03:14 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                Hi Paula,

                                So do you think one must first believe in the virgin birth and know God is a Trinity of persons before one can receive salvation? I hold that one whom God has saved (Eph 2:8):would have little or no problem belivining those truths. So one can have an ignorance of those two truths an God can still save a person.
                                I think that while a person may not have a full understanding of God they can still be saved. However, their ignorance shouldn't last as upon conversion the Church should educate the new Christian regarding the fundamentals. A good example is the thief on the cross--he more than likely didn't know all the fundamentals but he was still welcomed by Jesus into the kingdom of God. However, if the thief wasn't on the cross but was maybe a heckler in the crowd who converted I can't see why he wouldn't have tracked down the rest of the disciples to learn about being a follower of Jesus. The thief's experience isn't normative--the ignorance shouldn't last.

                                My list wasn't so much a list of "what you must believe before becoming a Christian" but rather "what makes up the Christian worldview".

                                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                                There is a difference between core doctrines and essential doctrines.
                                I would use those two words interchangeably, what is the difference you are drawing?

                                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                                1)Monotheism: Not essential - commitment to God alone - to the exclusion of all others - is enough.
                                So could someone be considered a Christian if they believe that the Hindu gods are real but that the God of the Bible is the supreme God and commit themselves to only worshiping Him?

                                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                                10)Justified by faith alone: Incorrect. Romans 2:13, 3:24, 5:9, [Galatians 3:11 - depending on interpretation], Titus 3:7, James 2:24 - among others.
                                What I meant was that we can't earn our salvation. Good works will follow from genuine faith but they aren't what justifies us. Jesus's work on the cross is what saves us.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X