What [i]must[/i] we believe to be Christians?

[jimmybob479]

This post could alternativley be titled "essentials". It's a branch-off topic that was from a quote on from Augustine over in another part of the forums. It got me thinking: what are, historically, the essentials of Christianity? To clear things up - i dont mean to sound like i'm implying merely intellectual acknowledging these doctrines means your a christian. There is more to that in saving faith. It's not intellectual assent, not merely believing these doctrines, but more. Anyway, historically, what doctrines are essential to what we call Christianity? What creeds? What doctrines?

From a protestant point of view, the essentials are usually follow the following:
1. Jesus is both God and man (John 1:1,14; 8:24; Col. 2:9; 1 John 4:1-4).
2. Jesus rose from the dead physically (John 2:19-21; 1 Cor. 15:14).
3. Salvation is by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:1-2; 5:1-4).*
4. The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus according to the scriptures (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Gal. 1:8-9).
5. There is only one God (Exodus 20:3; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8)

* there is some debate over this, as many, such as myself, believe its important that salvation is by grace alone, which even catholics agree, and do not believe you must believe it is by faith alone

[jesusfreak]

yea i think that those are a couple of the esentials. i have been chatting online in yahoo messenger and they try to say that jesus isn't man and God thanks for the scripture reference so i can help clear things up for them.

God Bless,

JesusFreak

[furay]

The problem with paring it down to the essentials is this: who gets to choose what the essentials are? A bunch of people on a theology message board in cyberspace? What kind of authority is that?!

[jimmybob479]

The problem with paring it down to the essentials is this: who gets to choose what the essentials are? A bunch of people on a theology message board in cyberspace? What kind of authority is that?!

No, ultimatly I believe it should be scripture. I don't think when people try to understand the essentials they would trust themselves to be their own sources...
for example, when calvin wrote the essentials, he used scripture. The main thing I wanted to ask in this post was: what are the essentials, to see if there is a common form we can all generally agree upon what is essential to Christianity. If Catholics view Protestant as "separated brethren" and thus Christians, and likewise the other way around (generally), and orthodox can view protestants as likewise Christians, then I believe its safe to assume there is some type of reasoning behind this: some "essentials" we all are referring to when making our decisions. In other posts people have pointed to creeds of sorts, i'm not very familiar with the creeds.....

[furay]

No, ultimatly I believe it should be scripture.
Whose interpretation of Scripture? Scripture does not interpret itself... if it did then everyone with a Bible would believe in the same things.

[jimmybob479]

Whose interpretation of Scripture? Scripture does not interpret itself... if it did then everyone with a Bible would believe in the same things.
you're pulling my topic more off-topic. That's exactly what i'm trying to get at. What are the different interpritation of what is essential. What's the reformed, non-reformed, nondenominational, etc, view. How do those views view other's christian's status. How do they see what a Christian is? Obviously somehow they do. Catholics, for example, see protestant's as Christians, why? Is there essentials we hold to?

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]Scripture does not interpret itself.It does. People who hold to 'sola Scripture' are not incompetents; they have a record of academic distinction that overwhelms everything else religious put together.

if it did then everyone with a Bible would believe in the same things.They do, if they are honest. Those who are born again know how others who are born again think before they have even met them.

[James Peter]

Academic distinction? Really? And there I was thinking that at least 95% of evangelical 'scholars' weren't considered that but those who actually are academic scholars...

Now then as far as the essentials are concerned I think all that is necessary is to believe that Jesus is both Christ and Son and that we are saved through his name/blood (i.e. power/passion). I'm not even convinced that it is critical to believe that we are saved in a certain way - all that matters is faith/trust that we are saved by Jesus (thats not to say that certain models aren't more scriptual than others but I don't think that they are 100% essential - you can badly misunderstand the cross and yet still be saved by it).

[Anoetos]

JP, I can go along with that, for the most part, but I would think that some acceptance of Jesus as divine and therefore sinless would also be necessary.

I'm not asking for a full-blown Chalcedonian Christology, or even a full-blown Substitutionary Atonement but some affirmation of His divinity...

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]Academic distinction? Really? And there I was thinking that at least 95% of evangelical 'scholars' weren't considered that but those who actually are academic scholars.That comment just shows the unfathomable depth your ignorance, J.Peter.

[James Peter]

JP, I can go along with that, for the most part, but I would think that some acceptance of Jesus as divine and therefore sinless would also be necessary.

I'm not asking for a full-blown Chalcedonian Christology, or even a full-blown Substitutionary Atonement but some affirmation of His divinity...

That part is covered by acknowledging that he is the 'Son' rather than 'a son'. But yes, the divinity of Christ is probably essential.

[Kenite]

But yes, the divinity of Christ is probably essential.Not for those who are perfect, I suppose.

[James Peter]

Who are those who are perfect?

The closest I can think of are those "in whom the love of God has been made perfect". They acknowledge the Son and love one another. (see 1 John) The reason I say 'probably' is because I don't think it is essential to equate Jesus' divinity with the Father's. Parts of the early church didn't, it was something that was only realised over maybe 20 or so years. For a Jew accepting that Jesus was the Messiah didn't have to involve believing that he was God-Incarnate. Don't misunderstand me, I stand firmly with John in asserting that he was, but I don't think a lower christology disqualifies one from redemption...

[Howie]

The teaching of Christ is more excellent than all the advice of the saints, and he who has His spirit will find in it a hidden manna. Now, there are many who hear the Gospel often but care little for it because they have not the spirit of Christ.

What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God.

These words are from a brilliant book entitled “The Imitation of Christ” by Thomas a’ Kempis a fifteenth century monk. I think in today’s world we often overlook his simple understanding.

“What must we believe to be Christians?” We must believe and trust in the teachings of Jesus Christ. I think all too often we get involved in things that distract us from those simple, clear teachings: “Love God”, Love your neighbor”, “Judge not lest you be judged”, “as you believe so it is done unto you”, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, “The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand”, “The Kingdom of Heaven is within you”. And the most difficult to grasp and most revolutionary teaching of Jesus: “Love your enemies”

[Duder]

The problem with paring it down to the essentials is this: who gets to choose what the essentials are? A bunch of people on a theology message board in cyberspace? What kind of authority is that?!

I would add that all this tremendous effort to arrive at the list of statements that must be affirmed as being factually correct is secondary to the crucial point.

At the risk of offending someone's traditional interpretions, faith isn't what you think - it's what you do. It isn't what you declare to be true, it's where you put your money. It's a leap of faith, sometimes into the complete unknown.

More important than what people say they think is whether or not they behave as followers of The Way. I don't care if they think the Lord rode a Harley into Jerusalem while the people chanted "Jesse Reb! Jesse Reb!" I am more interested to know if what they do demonstrates their discipleship to Him.

[Howie]

I would add that all this tremendous effort to arrive at the list of statements that must be affirmed as being factually correct is secondary to the crucial point.

At the risk of offending someone's traditional interpretions, faith isn't what you think - it's what you do. It isn't what you declare to be true, it's where you put your money. It's a leap of faith, sometimes into the complete unknown.

More important than what people say they think is whether or not they behave as followers of The Way. I don't care if they think the Lord rode a Harley into Jerusalem while the people chanted "Jesse Reb! Jesse Reb!" I am more interested to know if what they do demonstrates their discipleship to Him.
What you do is a manifestation of what you believe “According to your faith be it unto you.” “You know the tree by the fruit.” You know what you believe by what you do. You are correct that it isn’t what you say that reveals your beliefs, it is what you do. However, belief is the source of choice and action.

[jimmybob479]

Academic distinction? Really? And there I was thinking that at least 95% of evangelical 'scholars' weren't considered that but those who actually are academic scholars...

Now then as far as the essentials are concerned I think all that is necessary is to believe that Jesus is both Christ and Son and that we are saved through his name/blood (i.e. power/passion). I'm not even convinced that it is critical to believe that we are saved in a certain way - all that matters is faith/trust that we are saved by Jesus (thats not to say that certain models aren't more scriptual than others but I don't think that they are 100% essential - you can badly misunderstand the cross and yet still be saved by it).

This is what I understand too. I've read Luther and even he believed Augustine was a true Christian even though he believed he seriously misinterprited how salvation was. What's important is that he just simply trusted God for everything and not himself.

[jimmybob479]

I don't think many others have chimed in on this thread. Doctrinally speaking can all protestants (and I'm one of them) agree on what is "essential"? Can catholics? If we can't agree on what is essential, then how can we know what a christian is and what he isn't?

[Howie]

I don't think many others have chimed in on this thread. Doctrinally speaking can all protestants (and I'm one of them) agree on what is "essential"? Can catholics? If we can't agree on what is essential, then how can we know what a christian is and what he isn't?I believe that a Christian is one who sees everything through the lens of the words and teachings of Jesus Christ as put forth in the Gospels. Most Christian sects do not say that and some do not even agree with that statement. We argue about concepts like the Trinity, the Virgin birth, the Immaculate Conception, the Ascension, the Assumption, the Transfiguration and the like. You do not hear nearly as much discussion about what Jesus taught. You hear about Paul and John and The Revelation and Numbers and Deuteronomy and Exodus. You do not hear about Jesus' words.

Jesus' words and teachings are actually fairly simple and clear, but to understand them requires an understanding of Biblical Greek and Hebrew because of the horrific misrepresentations of what he said by translators. It also requires an understanding of the linguistic issues that exist because in all probability Jesus spoke in both Aramaic and Hebrew and possibly Greek. Once you have mastered those languages enough to investigate what Jesus said (as well as the meanings in Moses) the teachings of Jesus become strikingly clear. The distortions that have been done to his words also become strikingly clear. The same holds true of the teachings of Moses. The exact thing that Jesus rails against the religious leaders of his time for doing is the very thing that many of the religious leaders of our time are doing – and it is getting worse and worse because there are no strong voices opposing them.

That is the reason we cannot agree on what is essential. Religious leaders are more interested in personal wealth or power and/or the survival of the institutions they lead than in the words and teachings of Jesus Christ. They have to create division because that is their path to money, fame and power. You cannot even get them to agree that the words and teachings of Jesus are the most important truth of Christianity. And we, sheep that we are, accept that.

[James Peter]

So you're saying that Luke and Matthew are better testimonies to the teaching of Jesus than the earlier works of Paul? The problem with emphasising 'the words of Jesus' is that, to one extent or another, in the gospels we view them through the lens of the writer. We simply don't have the pure words of Jesus which I think makes what you are suggesting impossible.

I agree though that the chief reason that people cannot agree on what is essential is because many are concerned with defending their views rather than seeking the truth at any cost. All the time people have set assumptions and things which they are not prepared to question it is impossible to reach an absolute consenus - and even when people are prepared to question everything we simply do not have sufficient evidence to be 100% sure on many issues (look at the academic community and the disagreement on many exegetical issues within it...)

[Howie]

So you're saying that Luke and Matthew are better testimonies to the teaching of Jesus than the earlier works of Paul?
Without question. What Paul says needs to be viewed through the lens of what Jesus said. Paul never knew, saw or even heard Jesus. His knowledge of Jesus teachings had to be through the writings or witness of others (like Peter). That is the same knowledge the Gospel writers had – through the writings (Q) or witness of others. Either the Gospel writers rendering of the words of Jesus is accurate enough for us to understand Jesus’ teachings, or it is not. It seems to me that it is first question to ask. If one believes that their rendering of the teachings of Jesus is not accurate for us to grasp Jesus’ teachings, I am not sure whether we can accept that Paul’s knowledge of Jesus’ teachings is accurate enough for us to rely on Paul.

The problem with emphasising 'the words of Jesus' is that, to one extent or another, in the gospels we view them through the lens of the writer. The same can be said of Paul. We view the teachings of Jesus through the lens of Paul, and he does not give us nearly as many words and teachings of Jesus as the Gospel writers.

We simply don't have the pure words of Jesus which I think makes what you are suggesting impossible.So we Christians are sort of left to decide whose “version of things” we agree on? Joe believes Paul’s, and Ike believes Timothy’s and Jack believes John the Divine’s? Even a cursory reading of Paul reveals that he had an agenda – the nurturing of the church as he saw it. A cursory reading also reveals that Paul was promoting himself – different than any Gospel writer.

[James Peter]

Exactly, we have to agree either with the tradition of Paul-John-Peter or with the tradition which Paul strongly attacks and is probably most strongly reflected in Matthew. Alternatively we can try and reconcile the two traditions (the most common path) but doing so means we in fact lose both of the traditions and instead make our own.

Of course if we choose to trust Paul/John/Peter we have to acknowledge that we are seeing Jesus as they saw him. But if you give me the choice of taking the testimony of the beloved disciple, the apostle to the gentiles and the first amongst the disciples OR that or a (probably) second generation jewish-christian (i.e. Matthew) I know which I'd consider more reliable.

And Paul did see Jesus. If not before the passion (which is a possibility) then certainly on the road to Damascus. That Paul emphasised the Risen Christ over the Incarnate Christ really shouldn't be either surprising or negative. What is more important? What Jesus said or what Jesus is saying?

Compare the synoptics, the three aren't close enough to provide a strong witness to any specific reading of most of the sayings. I'm perfectly comfortable with the traditional ascription of Mark to John-Mark (son of Peter, companion of Paul) and as it is the earliest of the gospels (Matthean primacy is about doctrine not historical fact) I think viewing it as the most reliable is perfectly fair. I don't doubt for a moment that many of the additional sayings in Matt or Luke originate with Jesus but they are divorced from their original contexts and we cannot be certain about the exact wordings.

Of course as a final point it should be remembered the context in which Jesus was speaking. He was speaking to members of Israel who still stood under the Sinatic Law. To apply such instruction to people who have never been under that Law is inherently dangerous.

[Howie]

Exactly, we have to agree either with the tradition of Paul-John-Peter or with the tradition which Paul strongly attacks and is probably most strongly reflected in Matthew. Alternatively we can try and reconcile the two traditions (the most common path) but doing so means we in fact lose both of the traditions and instead make our own.

Of course if we choose to trust Paul/John/Peter we have to acknowledge that we are seeing Jesus as they saw him. But if you give me the choice of taking the testimony of the beloved disciple, the apostle to the gentiles and the first amongst the disciples OR that or a (probably) second generation jewish-christian (i.e. Matthew) I know which I'd consider more reliable.

And Paul did see Jesus. If not before the passion (which is a possibility) then certainly on the road to Damascus. That Paul emphasised the Risen Christ over the Incarnate Christ really shouldn't be either surprising or negative. What is more important? What Jesus said or what Jesus is saying?

Compare the synoptics, the three aren't close enough to provide a strong witness to any specific reading of most of the sayings. I'm perfectly comfortable with the traditional ascription of Mark to John-Mark (son of Peter, companion of Paul) and as it is the earliest of the gospels (Matthean primacy is about doctrine not historical fact) I think viewing it as the most reliable is perfectly fair. I don't doubt for a moment that many of the additional sayings in Matt or Luke originate with Jesus but they are divorced from their original contexts and we cannot be certain about the exact wordings.

Of course as a final point it should be remembered the context in which Jesus was speaking. He was speaking to members of Israel who still stood under the Sinatic Law. To apply such instruction to people who have never been under that Law is inherently dangerous.All you are saying is: I trust Paul not Matthew, Mark or Luke – but John I give a thumbs up to as well. That is nice. The only problem is that Paul does not give us hardly a word as to what Jesus said.

This is the fatal flaw in much modern christian thought. The words and teachings of Jesus are put in a secondary position. I could give you chapter and verse as to why Paul’s teachings may have been self-serving and at times not in line with Jesus’. What does that do but extend this disagreement which neither side can win. And what about all those poor fools who thought they were Christians before Paul had his epiphany? They didn’t have Jesus around, they only had the words and records of people who were around Jesus.

Since I am a Christian, I trust that the message of Jesus is so powerful that it survives human frailty. I am not a Paulist who believes that Paul’s message has the same power. Of course, we are all entitled to our own beliefs, but doesn’t anyone find it a bit disingenuous to call ourselves christian and put more emphasis emphesis on the preaching of Paul than on the teaching of Jesus?

[James Peter]

Actually I find that Mark is pretty Pauline but I classify it as Petrine because I believe that Peter is the source and authority behind it. So I have two of the gospels which work alongside each other, then epistles from three apostles and then the other NT texts are also useful but less reliable (Luke is generally reliable but he makes certain changes and so we cannot be confident about his general fidelity.) Of course I'd rather have the words of Jesus than the words of Paul - but the problem is that we don't have the words of Jesus. The choice is would I prefer to listen to the words of 'Matthew' (which he attributes to Jesus because he has no authority of his own) or the words of Paul who undisputedly had authority in the early church? Even the words of Jesus in John or Mark, both of which are incredibly useful works, are not reliably authentic. We know that John changed the sequence and context of certain events, none of the gospels are meant to be historical documentaries they are all theological documents written to elicit faith. Everything in Mark has to be understood to reflect the theology of Mark rather than the theology of Jesus, similarly with the other gospels. But as all the 'historical Jesus' research done over the last two centuries shows when we use the sources to reconstruct Jesus we always end up with a Jesus who is a reflection of us, or at least of how we think Jesus was. Sure, choose to think that Matthew is an accurate representation of Jesus but it is more probable that Mark is. Similarly the teaching of the early church was grounded in the apostles' teaching which was in turn grounded in Christ which makes it as reliable a witness to what Jesus taught as 40 years later collecting various different stories about Jesus and weaving them into a single narrative...

[Howie]

Actually I find that Mark is pretty Pauline but I classify it as Petrine because I believe that Peter is the source and authority behind it. So I have two of the gospels which work alongside each other, then epistles from three apostles and then the other NT texts are also useful but less reliable (Luke is generally reliable but he makes certain changes and so we cannot be confident about his general fidelity.) Of course I'd rather have the words of Jesus than the words of Paul - but the problem is that we don't have the words of Jesus. The choice is would I prefer to listen to the words of 'Matthew' (which he attributes to Jesus because he has no authority of his own) or the words of Paul who undisputedly had authority in the early church? Even the words of Jesus in John or Mark, both of which are incredibly useful works, are not reliably authentic. We know that John changed the sequence and context of certain events, none of the gospels are meant to be historical documentaries they are all theological documents written to elicit faith. Everything in Mark has to be understood to reflect the theology of Mark rather than the theology of Jesus, similarly with the other gospels. But as all the 'historical Jesus' research done over the last two centuries shows when we use the sources to reconstruct Jesus we always end up with a Jesus who is a reflection of us, or at least of how we think Jesus was. Sure, choose to think that Matthew is an accurate representation of Jesus but it is more probable that Mark is. Similarly the teaching of the early church was grounded in the apostles' teaching which was in turn grounded in Christ which makes it as reliable a witness to what Jesus taught as 40 years later collecting various different stories about Jesus and weaving them into a single narrative...Let me try to break this down into bite size pieces.

Mt 6:26: Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

Based on your statement: “Everything in Mark has to be understood to reflect the theology of Mark rather than the theology of Jesus,” I have to assume that you believe that this verse reflects the theology of Matthew not that of Jesus. Is that correct?

[James Peter]

The fact that Matthew uses it means that it reflects his theology. We can't be sure whether Jesus ever actually said it. The fact that Matthew records it doesn't mean that Jesus did or didn't although it is likely that Jesus said something similar. Whether a specific saying is 'authentic' is a difficult judgement to make and is made by comparing the saying to ones which are more reliable. Its a quagmire I admit but an unavoidable one, unless you'd rather embrace an easy lie over the truth. Matthew used many sources to write a document that reflects what he saw to be the role and teaching of the Messiah, the question we have to ask is how credible is his witness? My answer is that it is less reliable than other witnesses and that, when taken as a whole, his theology is exactly what Paul attacks as being the false gospel...

[Howie]

The fact that Matthew uses it means that it reflects his theology. We can't be sure whether Jesus ever actually said it. The fact that Matthew records it doesn't mean that Jesus did or didn't although it is likely that Jesus said something similar. Whether a specific saying is 'authentic' is a difficult judgement to make and is made by comparing the saying to ones which are more reliable. Its a quagmire I admit but an unavoidable one, unless you'd rather embrace an easy lie over the truth. Matthew used many sources to write a document that reflects what he saw to be the role and teaching of the Messiah, the question we have to ask is how credible is his witness? My answer is that it is less reliable than other witnesses and that, when taken as a whole, his theology is exactly what Paul attacks as being the false gospel...
1 Cor 1:10: According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

Based on your statements, this verse from Paul more closely represents the teachings of Jesus than the verse from Matthew.

[James Peter]

No, taking a single verse from each and comparing them is a fruitless exercise. Especially when they aren't even talking about the same subject.

Compare Paul's soteriology to Matthew's and then you can say that Paul is closer to Jesus' position. A single statement in isolation doesn't really tell us anything. Compare Paul's comments about the law to Mattew's comments about the law however and then you can see that there is a very different understanding of core issues. Look at how Matthew supplements the Markan account to see his theology at its clearest.

But none of this has anything to do with the essentials of the faith. Although Matthew's belief that the Sinatic Law would not pass away whilst Paul's belief that the cross destroyed the Law reflect a difference which still exists in the church. I stand with Paul and say that the cross was the apocalyptic invasion of God into the world to liberate man from the powers that enslaved us - the old order of things has been destroyed, the new world is already being realised... All we need to do is have faith and be set free...

[Howie]

James Peter:

I asked you if 1 Cor 1:10 more accurately reflects the teachings of Jesus than Mt 6:26. You responded by saying:

No, taking a single verse from each and comparing them is a fruitless exercise. Especially when they aren't even talking about the same subject.The word “No” implies that you believe in the comparison of there two verses that the verse from Matthew reflects the teachings of Jesus to a greater degree than the words of Paul. Is that correct?

You then shy away from doing a verse by verse examination comparing what the Gospels writers claim Jesus said and what Paul wrote because it would be “a fruitless exercise”. However, you made the statement that “Everything in Mark has to be understood to reflect the theology of Mark rather than the theology of Jesus, similarly with the other gospels”. Those are amazing and sweeping statements. You also claim Paul as a more valid source for Jesus’ teachings than the Gospels; another sweeping statement. If you have truly made a study of this, then you should be able to support you contention verse by verse. It is far from a fruitless exercise. If you simply believe it, you are entitled to believe whatever you chose, I humbly suggest, however, that it is not Christian.

Compare Paul's soteriology to Matthew's and then you can say that Paul is closer to Jesus' position. Really? On what do you base that since you have eliminated the Gospels as a valid source of Jesus’ teachings on salvation?

A single statement in isolation doesn't really tell us anything. Compare Paul's comments about the law to Mattew's comments about the law however and then you can see that there is a very different understanding of core issues. Why don’t you step me through that and show me how you determine Paul reflects Jesus’ teachings and Matthew does not.

Look at how Matthew supplements the Markan account to see his theology at its clearest.Why not step me through that as well. Give me chapter and verse.

But none of this has anything to do with the essentials of the faith. Whether one accepts the teachings of Jesus Christ as put forth in the Gospels has nothing to do with the Christian faith?! That is an astonishing statement.

Although Matthew's belief that the Sinatic Law would not pass away whilst Paul's belief that the cross destroyed the Law reflect a difference which still exists in the church. I stand with Paul and say that the cross was the apocalyptic invasion of God into the world to liberate man from the powers that enslaved us - the old order of things has been destroyed, the new world is already being realised... You can stand with whomever you choose, that is your prerogative. However you need to step me through how you know that Paul (who seldom quotes Jesus to back up his words) is closer in his preaching to Jesus’ teachings than the Gospels.

All we need to do is have faith and be set free.Faith base on what? If you eliminate the Gospels as an accurate reflection of Jesus' teachings, you need to show on what basis Paul’s preaching more accurately reflect Jesus teaching.

[magus]

But the whole point is that what you believe comes out in what you do.

For example, if you do not believe that Jesus was divine, you might shrug Him off as just a 'great teacher', and pick and choose which His teachings to practice and which not to. Even if you believe Jesus to be 'Anointed', well, good ol' David was anointed too and he was a sinner like the rest of us.

If you do not believe in God as Triune (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), then you aren't worshipping a God revealed through Scripture. And, Jesus' claims about Himself and the nature of His relationship with His Father, as well as the parakletos (Holy Spirit) are part of His teaching as well.

For myself, I believe what Scripture reveals. I would add to the list above in the OP;
1. All of mankind have sinned. I have sinned. My sin condemns me to eternal separation from God. I need to be saved from my sin.
3. God revealed Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
4. The Gospel is the Kingdom of Heaven drawing near to us - it's here, even.
5. No one comes to the Father except through Jesus.
6. Repentence of sin is a faith response to the Gospel.
7. The Bible is a record of God revealing Himself to us.

Mostly anything else is probably up for grabs.

Love in Christ,
Magus

[Howie]

But the whole point is that what you believe comes out in what you do.

For example, if you do not believe that Jesus was divine, you might shrug Him off as just a 'great teacher', and pick and choose which His teachings to practice and which not to. Even if you believe Jesus to be 'Anointed', well, good ol' David was anointed too and he was a sinner like the rest of us.

If you do not believe in God as Triune (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), then you aren't worshipping a God revealed through Scripture. And, Jesus' claims about Himself and the nature of His relationship with His Father, as well as the parakletos (Holy Spirit) are part of His teaching as well.I extend to you the words from "The Imitation of Christ” the writings of 15th Century monk Thomas a’ Kempis. His perspective is one that we have lost and that loss has caused tremendous confusion for Christianity.

The teaching of Christ is more excellent than all the advice of the saints, and he who has His spirit will find in it a hidden manna. Now, there are many who hear the Gospel often but care little for it because they have not the spirit of Christ.

What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it. For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the philosophers if we live without grace and the love of God?

[magus]

Which means...?

You need to know certain facts in order to proceed. You can say a person leads a 'Christian' life, in the sense that he is good, gentle, kind, polite, honest, generous, charitable, etc etc etc but if he doesn't believe Jesus died for his sins what would it avail him?

I'm not saying that belief is more important than action. Obviously, saving faith entails works as well. But the works are evidence of our faith, not the other way around.

And there are certain core beliefs which, if you do not believe in, you cannot be called a Christian, because those beliefs come from Jesus' own sayings and teachings.

Love in Christ,
Magus

[Howie]

Which means...?

You need to know certain facts in order to proceed. You can say a person leads a 'Christian' life, in the sense that he is good, gentle, kind, polite, honest, generous, charitable, etc etc etc but if he doesn't believe Jesus died for his sins what would it avail him?

I'm not saying that belief is more important than action. Obviously, saving faith entails works as well. But the works are evidence of our faith, not the other way around.

And there are certain core beliefs which, if you do not believe in, you cannot be called a Christian, because those beliefs come from Jesus' own sayings and teachings.

Love in Christ,
Magus
I think if you refer to the parable of the Good Samaritan you will get Jesus’ thoughts on this subject.

[spitndirt]

This post could alternativley be titled "essentials". It's a branch-off topic that was from a quote on from Augustine over in another part of the forums. It got me thinking: what are, historically, the essentials of Christianity? To clear things up - i dont mean to sound like i'm implying merely intellectual acknowledging these doctrines means your a christian. There is more to that in saving faith. It's not intellectual assent, not merely believing these doctrines, but more. Anyway, historically, what doctrines are essential to what we call Christianity? What creeds? What doctrines?

From a protestant point of view, the essentials are usually follow the following:
1. Jesus is both God and man (John 1:1,14; 8:24; Col. 2:9; 1 John 4:1-4).
2. Jesus rose from the dead physically (John 2:19-21; 1 Cor. 15:14).
3. Salvation is by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:1-2; 5:1-4).*
4. The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus according to the scriptures (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Gal. 1:8-9).
5. There is only one God (Exodus 20:3; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8)

* there is some debate over this, as many, such as myself, believe its important that salvation is by grace alone, which even catholics agree, and do not believe you must believe it is by faith alone
Greetings,

I agree with you. I would just state it a little different. I would say, "What Christians DO believe". [Must] implies effort - as if assent would be acceptable apart from knowledge.

[Howie]

It is stunning to me that, when asked this question, no one responds that a Christian must believe in the words and teachings of Jesus Christ. Prior to the establishment of the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” and even after that, many devote Christians believed that the most important aspect of being a Christian was to abide by the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels. This is supported by Jesus’ own words and teachings which in recent centuries have been relegated to a secondary position. We have only to look to Jesus’ commandments and Jesus’ parables and teachings.

[James Peter]

But what was Jesus' teaching? "Repent and Believe!"

And did the early church emphasise the words of Jesus? The evidence doesn't really support that. The earliest documents we have don't base their authority on sayings of Jesus. Certainly they were important enough to be preserved and handed on but it was the testimony of the Spirit which determined what the apostles did...

The question also remains 'which teachings of Jesus'? Everything attributed to him? Everything attributed to him within the NT canon? Just what we believe actually was said by him? Of course what Jesus taught is important, but we don't have direct testimony of what he taught - and we certainly don't have a systematic work of his teaching.

[Howie]

But what was Jesus' teaching? "Repent and Believe!"Jesus repent and believe what?

And did the early church emphasise the words of Jesus? The evidence doesn't really support that. The earliest documents we have don't base their authority on sayings of Jesus. Certainly they were important enough to be preserved and handed on but it was the testimony of the Spirit which determined what the apostles did...It is clear (since we have them) that early Christians thought the teachings of Jesus were important enough to preserve and pass on for decades before Paul arrived on the scene.

The question also remains 'which teachings of Jesus'? Everything attributed to him? Everything attributed to him within the NT canon? Just what we believe actually was said by him? Of course what Jesus taught is important, but we don't have direct testimony of what he taught - and we certainly don't have a systematic work of his teaching.And we are not certain what Paul’s motives for writing what he wrote were. What teachings of Jesus we do have are clear and simple. One has only to read his words. It is my contention (as you know) that a Christian looks at the words and teachings of all others through the lens of the words and teachings of Jesus. In a previous post you took issue with that. However, you never supported your criticisms by responding to my queries.

[James Peter]

Jesus repent and believe what?

"in the good news" (metanoeite kai pisteuete ev tw euaggeliw. What is 'the gospel'? Immediate context suggests it is that the Messiah is here and your sins can be forgiven...

It is clear (since we have them) that early Christians thought the teachings of Jesus were important enough to preserve and pass on for decades before Paul arrived on the scene.

'For decades' is certainly an exageration. At most for one decade, quite possibly for only about 5 years. Paul became a christian very early and was part of the Antioch church for about a decade before going off and planting churches... Its possible that Paul was a christian for as long as christians have been called christians... We don't know how active the church was in preserving sayings however. Did they feature in a semi-liturgical context? Did the church base its decisions on the sayings? Or were stories about Jesus told and kept alive mainly by individuals? We simply don't know, and the fact that oral tradition kept them alive doesn't tell us whether they were considered important or not. Certainly they weren't considered important enough to be written down and circulated in the same way the Paul's letters were... Or if they were they were not retained by the church in the same way which suggests a lesser status.

And we are not certain what Paul’s motives for writing what he wrote were. What teachings of Jesus we do have are clear and simple. One has only to read his words. It is my contention (as you know) that a Christian looks at the words and teachings of all others through the lens of the words and teachings of Jesus. In a previous post you took issue with that. However, you never supported your criticisms by responding to my queries.

So we can't know and trust Paul's motives but we can know and trust 'Matthew'. One is a historical figure in the early church who nobody disputes had considerable authority. The other we don't even know his real name with any degree of confidence, let alone what authority he had. And if you think that the teachings of Jesus are 'clear and simple' then you need to get a few good introductions to 'the synoptic problem' out of the library. The sayings of Jesus, even when just limited to the synoptics, do present many problems. When you contrast those with the Johannine Jesus you cannot but realise that the problem is complex and far from 'clear and simple'. As I've said before, of course the words of Jesus should have the most authority - but we do not have them. Or rather, we do but we do not look at them directly. We have the words of 'Matthew', Luke, Mark and John... We have their recollections of Jesus, or in many cases we have their reconstructions of the words of Jesus - based on probably fragmentary (and possibly contradictory) oral tradition. If the early church considered the words of Jesus so important why didn't the apostles themselves (if not Jesus himself) write them down? If they did, why didn't the church preserve them in the same way as they preserved many of Paul's letters and, later, the gospels? I think the only plausible conclusion is that those who were in the position to do so did not feel it was important to do so. God didn't inspire them to do so either seemingly. It was only in the second, or maybe even third, generation of christians that it was decided a written record was needed - but by that point it was too late to provide a fully accurate record and so different christian communities preserved the tradition as they had it at that time. And there was no single tradition, as a comparison of Matthew and John clearly shows....

[Howie]

"in the good news" (metanoeite kai pisteuete ev tw euaggeliw. What is 'the gospel'? Immediate context suggests it is that the Messiah is here and your sins can be forgiven...Perhaps the good news was the good news of Jesus' teachings. If we can't rely on the Gospels for anything, how can we even discuss the possibility that Jesus was the Messiah?

'For decades' is certainly an exageration. At most for one decade, quite possibly for only about 5 years.There is debate about this, but no scholar would seriously disagree that in most likelihood it was at least a decade and that it is probable that the words of Jesus were passed down within Christian sects that Paul disagreed with for decades and therefore he never saw them during that time. There is little if any evidence in his epistles that he did.

Paul became a christian very early and was part of the Antioch church for about a decade before going off and planting churches... Its possible that Paul was a christian for as long as christians have been called christians... We don't know how active the church was in preserving sayings however. Did they feature in a semi-liturgical context? Did the church base its decisions on the sayings? Or were stories about Jesus told and kept alive mainly by individuals? We simply don't know, and the fact that oral tradition kept them alive doesn't tell us whether they were considered important or not. Certainly they weren't considered important enough to be written down and circulated in the same way the Paul's letters were... Or if they were they were not retained by the church in the same way which suggests a lesser status.We are saying the same thing.

So we can't know and trust Paul's motives but we can know and trust 'Matthew'. One is a historical figure in the early church who nobody disputes had considerable authority. The other we don't even know his real name with any degree of confidence, let alone what authority he had. And if you think that the teachings of Jesus are 'clear and simple' then you need to get a few good introductions to 'the synoptic problem' out of the library. Your condescension may be misplaced. There is still clarity and simplicity in a great many of the teachings in the Gospels – whether you attribute those teachings to Jesus or the Gospel writer.

The sayings of Jesus, even when just limited to the synoptics, do present many problems. When you contrast those with the Johannine Jesus you cannot but realise that the problem is complex and far from 'clear and simple'. You confuse the synoptic issue with the clarity in the Gospels. I am sure that if you looked you would see many very clear teachings stated very simply and many simple parables with clear morals or lessons – whether you attribute those sayings to Jesus or not is the issue you raise.

As I've said before, of course the words of Jesus should have the most authority - but we do not have them. Then what we are left with is not and cannot be the teachings of Jesus – or for that matter a set of teachings that we can say with any certainty are Jesus’. We have the teachings of Paul and Peter and Timothy and Matthew and Mark and Luke and a couple of Johns, but no Jesus. So even calling the religion “Christianity” is fraudulent because we don’t have any of the teachings of Jesus and cannot be followers of his.

Or rather, we do but we do not look at them directly. We have the words of 'Matthew', Luke, Mark and John... We have their recollections of Jesus, or in many cases we have their reconstructions of the words of Jesus - based on probably fragmentary (and possibly contradictory) oral tradition. The Gospels agree on much more of what Jesus taught than they disagree on. Even if you eliminate the words of Jesus that they disagree on you have a wealth of teachings that they do agree on. Your point is that they are more likely the teachings of Matthew or Mark or Luke or John or whoever actually wrote the Gospels..

If the early church considered the words of Jesus so important why didn't the apostles themselves (if not Jesus himself) write them down? We don’t really know, do we? There is some evidence that they did. There are scholars who are looking into the theory that the teachings of Jesus were written down (perhaps by apostles) and that those older writings were used by the Gospel writers.

If they did, why didn't the church preserve them in the same way as they preserved many of Paul's letters and, later, the gospels? We don’t know that either, do we? There are many who think that Paul’s teachings were swayed more by his need to influence his readers than by a desire to pass on the teachings of Jesus. One has to ask the question why Paul almost never passes along Jesus’ teachings in Jesus’ words. Did he ever hear Jesus’ teachings or talk with any of the people who were there when Jesus spoke? It is fairly certain that he spoke with Peter. There is also some evidence that there was disagreement between the two of them.

I think the only plausible conclusion is that those who were in the position to do so did not feel it was important to do so. A fascinating conclusion: Christians, followers of Jesus, determined that it was not important to preserve the words and teachings of Jesus. There is also the possibility that the words and teachings of Jesus would have interfered with their personal agendas. That is also a theory that scholars have written about for decades.

God didn't inspire them to do so either seemingly. This is another thing we do not know – what inspiration, or lack thereof, they had from God.

It was only in the second, or maybe even third, generation of christians that it was decided a written record was needed – We do not know when a record was written down. We only know the oldest record that we have. Some scholars are researching the possibility that Matthew was originally written much earlier and in Hebrew then rendered in Greek.

but by that point it was too late to provide a fully accurate record And Paul could? On what do you base that?

and so different christian communities preserved the tradition as they had it at that time. And there was no single tradition, as a comparison of Matthew and John clearly shows....A comparison of Matthew, Mark and Luke shows differently as do other scriptures not included by the “Church” in the Bible. As for the question of John, there are still similarities in Jesus teaching between his Gospel and those of the synoptics.

According to your theory, since we cannot know what Jesus taught, then we cannot in good conscience call ourselves Christians. Since we cannot know what Jesus taught, then we can’t even be Christians. We can be followers of Matthew or John or Paul or some combination of New Testament writers, but not Jesus because each writer was really giving us their teachings, not Jesus. That position is supportable (as are many others) given the historic evidence (or lack thereof). It just eliminates following the teachings of Jesus because we don’t and can’t know them.

For us to say that we are Christians in one breath and then say that we cannot believe the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels in the next breath is a fascinating position to me. It is one that I have confronted not that infrequently, but one that is still shocking to me.