Essential Christian Doctrine? (Based on the Calvinism threads)

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

After seeing the reply to some of my posts, I want to reach absolute clarification among Christians on my stance on essential Christian doctrine and be sure something isn't being misunderstood.

My stance is that some doctrines are essential because they are events such as if they did not happen this way, then there could be no salvation. In other words, if Jesus is not God, then he is not able to provide salvation. If God is not a Trinity, then you do not have the God of the Bible. If Jesus is not born of a virgin, then you cannot say he is truly the Son of God. If he did not rise physically from the dead, then you cannot say he truly conquered death. If he is not coming again, then you cannot truly say he will conquer evil.

I will state I do not believe that you have to give a full doctrinal statement. I think a person can come to Christ, and some time later, come to realize that he's God. I don't think a true Christian can actively deny any of these doctrines though. It's a reason we don't accept JWs or Christadelphians or Mormons as Christians.

Let's be clear, you have to believe some things to be a Christian. If you can believe anything and be a Christian, then being a Christian has no real meaning. If you can believe in any Jesus and be a Christian, then Jesus has no real meaning either.

So I'd just like some clarification on this point from my brothers and sisters on here. I personally when I want to know if someone is a Christian, just ask who Jesus is. Once we agree on Jesus and the work he did, everything else is secondary.

[Chrysostom]

Your OP is well put - I agree that one doesn't have to give a full doctrinal statement; yet as you say, belief in Jesus Christ entails that certain other propositions be held. I believe that the three Creeds together provide an excellent summary of the 'essentials' necessitated by belief in the proposition that "Jesus Christ is the Son of God".

[cbro]

After seeing the reply to some of my posts, I want to reach absolute clarification among Christians on my stance on essential Christian doctrine and be sure something isn't being misunderstood.

My stance is that some doctrines are essential because they are events such as if they did not happen this way, then there could be no salvation. In other words, if Jesus is not God, then he is not able to provide salvation. If God is not a Trinity, then you do not have the God of the Bible. If Jesus is not born of a virgin, then you cannot say he is truly the Son of God. If he did not rise physically from the dead, then you cannot say he truly conquered death. If he is not coming again, then you cannot truly say he will conquer evil.

I will state I do not believe that you have to give a full doctrinal statement. I think a person can come to Christ, and some time later, come to realize that he's God. I don't think a true Christian can actively deny any of these doctrines though. It's a reason we don't accept JWs or Christadelphians or Mormons as Christians.

Let's be clear, you have to believe some things to be a Christian. If you can believe anything and be a Christian, then being a Christian has no real meaning. If you can believe in any Jesus and be a Christian, then Jesus has no real meaning either.

So I'd just like some clarification on this point from my brothers and sisters on here. I personally when I want to know if someone is a Christian, just ask who Jesus is. Once we agree on Jesus and the work he did, everything else is secondary.Your Dean's list post was better.
Originally posted by ApologiaNick in the thread What do you think of Reformation theology Justin? on November 28th 2005:

I'm going to go back to something posted much earlier but needs to be spelled out considering I'm sure Rando completely misunderstood my view.

There's a reason we don't call Muslims Christians, or Buddhists, or Hindus, or atheists, or JWs or Mormons or the various other cult groups. Anybody know what that difference is?

They don't believe the doctrines that all Christians believe.

These include the doctrines that if they were not so, Christ could not have accomplished our salvation. That would mean the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the physical resurrection, and the Trinity.

Am I saying that you have to be able to give a doctrinal statement on each of these? No. I think many people get saved at a young age without having a clue about the Trinity for instance. However, as they get older, if they truly are Christians, they will accept it. In fact, implicit in receiving Christ as savior and Lord is a Trinity doctrine. You pray for forgiveness, which only God can do, based on the work of God, which is done in Christ, and the request for him to live in your heart, which is what I call the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the conversion process. There's nothing modalistic in that either as each person of the Trinity has their own function in the plan of salvation.

People. There are some things you have to believe to be a Christian. It makes no sense to say you can be a Christian without acknowledging Jesus as savior and Lord it does to say that you can be a Muslim even though you don't believe Mohammad is a prophet.

However, Calvinism is NOT in this area. I am not against litmus tests. When I meet someone, if I want to know if I can call them brother, (or sister) I ask them who Jesus is. If they don't give the Christian answer to that question, I don't care what other doctrines they hold, they don't qualify as Christians then. If someone has a religion where Jesus is not fully deity, they may have a nice religion, but it sure isn't Christianity.

[James Peter]

Well, as I've made clear in other similar threads I believe that the list is very, very short. Much shorter than 'everything in the creeds'.

Jesus is both the Christ and God himself.
God came into the world, lived and was crucified before being raised to life again and in doing so accomplished our liberation from the bondage of sin and death...

Thats it. That is all that is truely 'essential'.

The virgin birth isn't an essential doctrine. It very well 'might' be true but the there were other models of incarnation in the early church and I don't think that believing in one of them would, of itself, have disqualified somebody from being 'saved'. There are those who say that Jesus only truely became divine at his baptism or at his resurrection - I don't agree with them but I don't think such a stance is automatically 'not christian'. Are you saying that somebody who only had Mark, Paul and the OT could not be saved because they didn't believe in the virgin birth? (Assuming that they had an OT where the passage in Isaiah was translated as 'maiden' rather than 'virgin') I think such a position puts too much emphasis on knowledge/understanding. I just use that example as it had already been brought up, but many similar positions are also not 'essential' and can be coherantly rejected without compromising the true essentials... Similarly the divinity of the Spirit isn't 'essential', or at least not a fully trinitarian understanding. If it was then much of the early church would not be christian - and I don't think that Paul and Peter can be excluded from the church. Such issues are important, but they are not essential. The earliest 'creed' contains all the essentials: Jesus Christ, God's Son, Saviour. <Insert Fish-Smily here>

[jimmybob479]

I've tried to start a post like this, but usually people don't understand what i'm trying to say. Thanks for making this one. It fustrats me a great deal because in my mind if we cannot establish what a Christian believes, then how can we know who a Christian is? What's the use of being a Christian if we don't even know what it is? If we can't agree on what the essentials are? It seems logical to me. I know the protestant stance on this issue - although it's not always uniform, it's usually consistent such as

Primary Essentials (Nature and work of Christ) - Cannot deny and be Christian since they are explicitly stated as required in scripture.

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).
3. Salvation is by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 5:1-5).
4. The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Gal. 1:8-9).
5. There is only one God (Exodus 20:1-3; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8)

Secondary Essentials - (Nature of God) Cannot deny and be Christian.

1. God exists as a Trinity of persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (See Trinity)
2. Virgin Birth of Jesus - relates to incarnation of Christ as God and man.

I'm also curious to read Calvin's view on essentials. I've tried to ask what the Orthodox / Catholic essentials are. Catholics themselves have mentioned "well, we believe in the same core essentials.." so it's apparent they have some type of essentials. I believe it is something like the first 3 creeds, and there has been a great deal of specifically catholic documents out there that further clarify about need to be part of the Catholic church or not. That's usually the differing point between [non-liberal] Protestants and Orthodox/Catholic.

[Jaltus]

Virgin birth is the only one I would dispute as essential.

[Howie]

I still believe that the 15th Century monk Thomas a Kempis had it right. His emphasis on the words and teachings of Jesus Christ is missing in so much of our theological discourse today.

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. Yet whoever wishes to understand fully the words of Christ must try to pattern his whole life on that 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?

Tell me, where now are all the masters and teachers whom you knew so well in life and who were famous for their learning? Others have already taken their places and I know not whether they ever think of their predecessors. During life they seemed to be something; now they are seldom remembered. How quickly the glory of the world passes away! If only their lives had kept pace with their learning, then their study and reading would have been worth while.

[spitndirt]

I still believe that the 15th Century monk Thomas a Kempis had it right. His emphasis on the words and teachings of Jesus Christ is missing in so much of our theological discourse today.

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. Yet whoever wishes to understand fully the words of Christ must try to pattern his whole life on that 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?

Tell me, where now are all the masters and teachers whom you knew so well in life and who were famous for their learning? Others have already taken their places and I know not whether they ever think of their predecessors. During life they seemed to be something; now they are seldom remembered. How quickly the glory of the world passes away! If only their lives had kept pace with their learning, then their study and reading would have been worth while.
Hey guys,

I have been Christian (born again) for a number of years. Yet I have a different experience, and have come to different conclusions. As I have grown in faith I have moved from the idea of 'what one believes' to 'what one [knows]'. In other words, true faith results in absolute knowledge of [the truth]. I have found that God is a God who [makes known] the truth to them that believe. 'Belief' or 'faith' being [obeying the voice of God] - just as our example (where faith is concerned) Abraham did. As Jesus said, "...if you were Abraham's children you would do the things that Abraham did.'

Having said this, these are the things I have come to know:

1) Justification is by faith - obeying the Gospel of Christ resulting in the knowledge of God
2) God is one - which is what is written without deducing.
3) The 'rock' upon which Jesus builds His Church is [the revelation of Jesus Christ]'
4) Scripture is the doctrine of God - '...all Scripture is God breathed and is profitable for DOCTRINE, reproof,.....' (what is not Scripture is not doctrine)
5) Jesus is [the Christ, the Son of the Living God] - in whom the fullness of God dwelt bodily.
6) Jesus died for our sins, and the sins of the whole world, and was place in a tomb
7) God raised Him (Jesus) from the dead
8) He ascended to the right hand of God
9) And will come again at the appointed time

These are a few things that I know to be true - not believe, but KNOW. It seems by what I am reading in this thread that to [you] I would not be Christian since I do not know a trinity. The Lord our God is one Lord. All of Scripture states only this - nothing beyond. Human deduction says otherwise. Ask yourselves this question: God said in the beginning, '....let [us] make man in our image and in our likeness...' Was God speaking to [the Word], or was He speaking [the Word] to another? Think about it.

Peace in the Lord

[kaine diatheke]

Hey guys,

I have been Christian (born again) for a number of years. Yet I have a different experience, and have come to different conclusions. As I have grown in faith I have moved from the idea of 'what one believes' to 'what one [knows]'. In other words, true faith results in absolute knowledge of [the truth]. I have found that God is a God who [makes known] the truth to them that believe. 'Belief' or 'faith' being [obeying the voice of God] - just as our example (where faith is concerned) Abraham did. As Jesus said, "...if you were Abraham's children you would do the things that Abraham did.'

Having said this, these are the things I have come to know:

1) Justification is by faith - obeying the Gospel of Christ resulting in the knowledge of God
2) God is one - which is what is written without deducing.
3) The 'rock' upon which Jesus builds His Church is [the revelation of Jesus Christ]'
4) Scripture is the doctrine of God - '...all Scripture is God breathed and is profitable for DOCTRINE, reproof,.....' (what is not Scripture is not doctrine)
5) Jesus is [the Christ, the Son of the Living God] - in whom the fullness of God dwelt bodily.
6) Jesus died for our sins, and the sins of the whole world, and was place in a tomb
7) God raised Him (Jesus) from the dead
8) He ascended to the right hand of God
9) And will come again at the appointed time

These are a few things that I know to be true - not believe, but KNOW. It seems by what I am reading in this thread that to [you] I would not be Christian since I do not know a trinity. The Lord our God is one Lord. All of Scripture states only this - nothing beyond. Human deduction says otherwise. Ask yourselves this question: God said in the beginning, '....let [us] make man in our image and in our likeness...' Was God speaking to [the Word], or was He speaking [the Word] to another? Think about it.

Peace in the Lord


Trinitarianism does not deny that God is one. If I may, I would like a chance to prove it.

The most famous statement of monotheism in the ancient Hebrew faith is the Shema, Deuteronomy 6:4,5. The Hebrew word translated "one" (echad) in Deut. 6:4 has the nuance of a compound unity. Other occurances of this word show this. A man and woman become one (echad) flesh (Gen. 2:24). In Ezra 2:64, the whole assembly was as one (echad). The two sticks of Ezekiel 37:17 combine to form one (echad) stick.

Although this does not prove Trinitarianism outright here, it at least opens the door for it. I truly do hope and pray this helps.

Kaine Diatheke

[Howie]

I think of one in particular friend I have, a Muslim Imam and Scholar with whom I have some inspiring spiritual discussions. He has a PhD from an excellent Divinity School. He has three children and a two bedroom apartment. He and his wife bring in women with aides and their babies, young men trying to kick a habit, abused women and children. He doesn’t ask if they are Christian, Muslim, Jew, or Hindu. I am not talking about a formal enterprise. They have no public funding and do not ask anyone to “contribute” to them. They do this with their own money in their own home. Once a month he drives local young men to the scared straight program at the local prison here. He works as a drug counselor and his wife as a social worker. They don’t believe that Jesus is God; they don’t believe that God is triune; they don’t believe that salvation is limited to Christians, but I can tell you, without question, theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. And if we believe differently, we need to re-examine the teachings of Jesus and reconsider our understanding of the essence of what it means to be a Christian.

Jesus came and pointed the way and rather than walk the path Jesus so clearly shows us, we have chosen to worship the pointer. More and more we do that in the folly of our ignorance and arrogance.

All the best.

[Jaltus]

John 14:6. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes unto the Father except by me."

Um, Jesus pointed to the path by claiming to be the path. Rather than arrogance, I think you speak from ignorance.

[Howie]

John 14:6. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes unto the Father except by me."

Um, Jesus pointed to the path by claiming to be the path. Rather than arrogance, I think you speak from ignorance.This is another time I have been accused of being ignorant on this forum. I try to ignore such posts, but I must admit it is getting under my skin. I have refrained from posting my credentials, but I feel I must. I did not study Biblical Greek and Hebrew as well as Christian theology and philosophy at Jesuitical institutions in the US and Europe for over 12 years and then spend another 8 years in specific New Testament study to be called ignorant.

I suggest you refer to the P66 Manuscript which contains John 14:6 in the Greek. There are esteemed scholars right now who, understanding that Jesus most likely spoke Aramaic and Biblical Hebrew, have serious disagreements with the translation of the verse that you posted. I simply bring to your attention that there is now growing evidence and consensus that when Jesus said “I am” he was not talking about himself personally, but was using the Hebrew name of God given to Moses in Exodus 3: I AM. Secondly I bring to your attention that the final word in the verse which is generally translated as “me” is possessive case, not objective case. The last phrase in that verse actually translates as “through that which I possess” – check any lexicon and they acknowledge this – and in this context the “what I possess” can well be “that which I know” (as in possession of knowledge).

Rather than get sidetracked with that, I humbly suggest that citing two or three verses from the Gospels cannot be a reason to ignore the wealth of Jesus’ teachings we have. We must look closely at ourselves and pray not to be led into the temptation of becoming like the Scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' time, deluded that their dogma was truth and their ignorance knowledge, and remain humble and of service, not arrogant, judgmental and all-knowing.

[jimmybob479]

This is another time I have been accused of being ignorant on this forum. I try to ignore such posts, but I must admit it is getting under my skin. I have refrained from posting my credentials, but I feel I must. I did not study Biblical Greek and Hebrew as well as Christian theology and philosophy at Jesuitical institutions in the US and Europe for over 12 years and then spend another 8 years in specific New Testament study to be called ignorant.

I suggest you refer to the P66 Manuscript which contains John 14:6 in the Greek. There are esteemed scholars right now who, understanding that Jesus most likely spoke Aramaic and Biblical Hebrew, have serious disagreements with the translation of the verse that you posted. I simply bring to your attention that there is now growing evidence and consensus that when Jesus said “I am” he was not talking about himself personally, but was using the Hebrew name of God given to Moses in Exodus 3: I AM. Secondly I bring to your attention that the final word in the verse which is generally translated as “me” is possessive case, not objective case. The last phrase in that verse actually translates as “through that which I possess” – check any lexicon and they acknowledge this – and in this context the “what I possess” can well be “that which I know” (as in possession of knowledge).

Rather than get sidetracked with that, I humbly suggest that citing two or three verses from the Gospels cannot be a reason to ignore the wealth of Jesus’ teachings we have. We must look closely at ourselves and pray not to be led into the temptation of becoming like the Scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' time, deluded that their dogma was truth and their ignorance knowledge, and remain humble and of service, not arrogant, judgmental and all-knowing.

kinda off-topic (this maybe could merit another thread) but then are you saying you believe that your Muslim friend is going to heaven based on the merits of his works? Or saying that a Christian is simply someone who follows what Christ would want them to do / Christ's teachings and not someone who intellectually believes something about Christ.

Anyway, as it's been going around up there in some of those previous posts, I don't believe just intellecutual knowledge makes someone a Christian / constitutes Saving faith. I don't believe their really Christians if they don't have any actions to back it up, changed lives, etc. Maybe i'll post more on this later, i gatta be finishing up some other stuff.

[Howie]

kinda off-topic (this maybe could merit another thread) but then are you saying you believe that your Muslim friend is going to heaven based on the merits of his works? Or saying that a Christian is simply someone who follows what Christ would want them to do / Christ's teachings and not someone who intellectually believes something about Christ.

Anyway, as it's been going around up there in some of those previous posts, I don't believe just intellecutual knowledge makes someone a Christian / constitutes Saving faith. I don't believe their really Christians if they don't have any actions to back it up, changed lives, etc. Maybe i'll post more on this later, i gatta be finishing up some other stuff.I refer you to the parable of the Good Samaritan as well as the only teachings Jesus called his commandments: Love thy God and love they neighbor.

[spitndirt]

Trinitarianism does not deny that God is one. If I may, I would like a chance to prove it.

The most famous statement of monotheism in the ancient Hebrew faith is the Shema, Deuteronomy 6:4,5. The Hebrew word translated "one" (echad) in Deut. 6:4 has the nuance of a compound unity. Other occurances of this word show this. A man and woman become one (echad) flesh (Gen. 2:24). In Ezra 2:64, the whole assembly was as one (echad). The two sticks of Ezekiel 37:17 combine to form one (echad) stick.

Although this does not prove Trinitarianism outright here, it at least opens the door for it. I truly do hope and pray this helps.

Kaine Diatheke
Kaine,

Thanks for your response. I know that the doctrine of the Trinity does not deny the unity of God. And your scriptural references are very interesting and are very relevant. There are many things that take this same pattern - creation account, creation of man, marriage and procreation(as you state), Christ and His Church,.....and most importantly Christ in [us], the hope of glory. But as you say, this doesn't prove trinitarianism - and I'm not convinced by this pattern of such a thing. In fact I'm more swayed the other way - oddly perhaps. In each of these things we see the picture of 'two' [becoming] 'one' - as opposed to three that are distinct from 'eternity past' and remianing 'distinct' intil this present time. I guess this is where the crux lies with me.

If Trinity was simply a term referring to 'father, Son, and Spirit' I would think nothing of it. But the heart of this doctrine states this: 'three distinct persons existing in eternity past' - Lutheran Church MS. This is never even closely hinted to in all of scripture. But not this only....the same Church confesses this: '...no one actually [knows] for sure...' So what they are confessing amounts to this: '....God is this!:...., but we don't know for sure...' - and still they require strict adherence to this doctrine with the implied threat of condemnation from God if we don't accept it by 'faith'. Now, even the most casual observer, if he is honest, must at least say ....hmmmm.... to this.

Another reason for doubting: The same confession (LCMS) teaches that ALL revelation is sealed up by Christ and the Apostles, meaning, 'there is no more revelation outside of Scripture'. Yet concerning the doctrine of the Trinity they say that it was [revealed] to the saints some time AFTER the first century (before the Catholic Church became corrupt). This just doesn't jive with common sense - yet the 'condemnation' for denying the Trinity still stands. They will EXCOMMUNICATE YOU if you deny this doctrine - but I could be an ADULTERER or even GAY and they would allow me to stay as long as I kept confessing my sin and was sorry and kept trying to change. What's up with that??? Is a sound mind in reality 'deceived'? It sure seems that way to me.

I my opinion this doctrine (and others) create the illusion of knowledge and diverts from the obedience of Faith - which results in actual knowledge (...if you obey My commands, then you will know...). The end result of this, in my estimation, is a shift in [works]. That is, one works according to knowledge, another apart from it - which would explain in part why Christians are not unified in the faith. Tha illusion of knowdge divides since each will have a different illusion. But God is one, thus not divided; and His Spirit bring unity, not division. Does this make sense?

In conclusion I would have to say (at this point) that the doctrine of the trinity is at the very least non-essential. The way I see it, anyway. Thanks again for your response....merry [Christ]mas!

Peace in the Lord

[Howie]

kinda off-topic (this maybe could merit another thread) but then are you saying you believe that your Muslim friend is going to heaven based on the merits of his works? Or saying that a Christian is simply someone who follows what Christ would want them to do / Christ's teachings and not someone who intellectually believes something about Christ.

Anyway, as it's been going around up there in some of those previous posts, I don't believe just intellecutual knowledge makes someone a Christian / constitutes Saving faith. I don't believe their really Christians if they don't have any actions to back it up, changed lives, etc. Maybe i'll post more on this later, i gatta be finishing up some other stuff.Thanks for you response. I look forward to your additional posts.

All the best.

[jimmybob479]

We really need some more imput into this thread. Like what was Luther's view of the Essential Christian Doctrine? (maybe Chytraeus can answer that). I'm raised Baptist so i'm not too "in" with all the ancient writings, i'm sure theres tons of confessional documents/creeds about belief. I know of a few that were gatherings based on what was "essential", I forget what a few of them are. What do those say about the essentials?

[Chytraeus]

Ok, JimmyBob, you got my attention. I have seen a number of things on this thread that I would like to respond to.

First, saving faith is not about what you "know", it is about whom you "trust." James said, "You believe in God, and you do well. But even the devil believes and trembles." Satan knows everything you know about God and more, and he knows it better than you, but he is not saved, because he does not, nor can he, trust that Christ Jesus died for all of his sins (he cannot because Jesus did not!). So, even an infant or a severely mentally handicapped person can have saving faith, although they have little or no real understading of doctrine. At the same, a doctor of theology may be headed straight to hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Now, this does not mean that knowledge of what we believe and why. God gave most of us minds, and He intends for us to use them in worship. This is not possible if we insist that doctrine is inconsequential to faith. Right doctrine strengthens faith, eventually making it a strong defense against the whiles of the enemy. Wrong doctrine can destroy faith be causing a person to worship an idol in place of the Living God.

That being said, there really are no unessential doctrines. Everything taught in Scripture is essential to the life and livelihood of the Church and those she nurishes.

The Trinity? Absolutely. The claim that Lutherans believe in the Trinity only because of some teachings of the early church after the Bible was written is utterly false, and only shows a real lack of understanding about the Christian doctrine held by Lutherans. Our doctrine of the Trinity is confessed in the three "Ecumenical Creeds," the Apostle's Creed, the Nician Creed, and the 'Athanasian Creed.' An English translation of these creeds can be found at this web site, http://www.bookofconcord.org/creeds.html However, these are not suppliments to the Bible, they are not extra doctrine, they are nothing more that a faithful confession of what the Bible itself says about God.

Jesus told us to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Paul concluded many of his letters with trinitarian doxologies, ie. "May the peace of God and the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." However the strongest evidence for the Trinity is in the creation naritives aof Genesis and John.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. n the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
Now, Scripture tells us that God created the Heavens and the earth, that the Spirit of God hovered over the waters, and that the Word (who is later to be shown to be Jesus) was with God and that all things were created through Him. One God, three distinct persons acting in three distinct ways to bring about one, perfectly unified purpose.

Another excellent biblical picture of the Trinity is in the Gospels.
When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. nd suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
Jesus, the Son of God was being baptized, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in the form of a dove, and the Father spoke from heaven. Again, one God, three distinct persons acting in three distinct ways achieving one perfectly unified purpose.

The claim that the Bible does not even hint at the Trinity is entirely unfounded.

Howie, when you make statements about people who have absolutely no faith in Christ for their salvation earning eternal life by their good works, completely in contradiction to the Word of God that says that it is not good works, but faith in Christ's death for our sins that saves, then when someone says that they think you are speaking from ignorance and not arrogance, they are trying to be nice. The other option is that you know the truth perfectly well, and arrogently believe the exact opposite. However, since you claim that you are not ignorant, then the charge of arrogent disbelief is the only other option.

In the Lutheran Church we have the Small Catechism, which we consider to be the compilation of those doctrines that are essential to retaining true faith. It begins with the 10 Commandments and a Christian explanation of them (obviously we do not believe that people have to keep the 7th day of the week holy any more, so it requires a Christian explanation). Next it contains the Apostle's Creed with explanations showing that the Creed is not the creation of man, but based upon the solid Word of God. The next part is the Lord's Prayer, followed by explanations of Baptism and the Lord's Prayer. There is also a list of recommended forms for private confession and absolution, daily prayer, and biblical directions for people in various vocations in life. But it is the first 5, the Five Chief parts, that are considered necessary for true faith.

Much of what you have spoken of here is included just in that portion concerning the Apostle's Creed.


The First Article.

Of Creation.

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

What does this mean?--Answer.

I believe that God has made me and all creatures; that He has given me my body and soul, eyes, ears, and all my limbs, my reason, and all my senses, and still preserves them; in addition thereto, clothing and shoes, meat and drink, house and homestead, wife and children, fields, cattle, and all my goods; that He provides me richly and daily with all that I need to support this body and life, protects me from all danger, and guards me and preserves me from all evil; and all this out of pure, fatherly, divine goodness and mercy, without any merit or worthiness in me; for all which I owe it to Him to thank, praise, serve, and obey Him. This is most certainly true.

The Second Article.

Of Redemption.

And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

What does this mean?--Answer.

I believe that Jesus Christ, true God, begotten of the Father from eternity, and also true man, born of the Virgin Mary, is my Lord, who has redeemed me, a lost and condemned creature, purchased and won [delivered] me from all sins, from death, and from the power of the devil, not with gold or silver, but with His holy, precious blood and with His innocent suffering and death, in order that I may be [wholly] His own, and live under Him in His kingdom, and serve Him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness, even as He is risen from the dead, lives and reigns to all eternity. This is most certainly true.

The Third Article.

Of Sanctification.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; one holy Christian Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.

What does this mean?--Answer.

I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life. This is most certainly true.


These doctrines are considered essential. No one who knows of them and believes contrary to them can be saved. However, one can be ignorant of these doctrines and be saved, but they are better off if they learn them. Those who cannot learn them do to mental handicap or immaturity are not saved by a different kind of faith or grace. They have the same faith, it just is not as informed. It must be consistantly held that saving faith cannot be equated with knowledge of the facts about God. Nevertheless, saving faith is formed, perfected, made more mature by such knowldge. Rejecting essential points of doctrine is what is detrimental to saving faith.

[Howie]

Howie, when you make statements about people who have absolutely no faith in Christ for their salvation earning eternal life by their good works, completely in contradiction to the Word of God that says that it is not good works, but faith in Christ's death for our sins that saves, then when someone says that they think you are speaking from ignorance and not arrogance, they are trying to be nice. The other option is that you know the truth perfectly well, and arrogently believe the exact opposite. However, since you claim that you are not ignorant, then the charge of arrogent disbelief is the only other option.Calling someone names is beneath any Christian. I hope you will refrain from it in the future. I referred people to Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan. I also refer you to Thomas ‘a Kempis’ “Imitation of Christ” and finally I refer you to “The Rule of St. Benedict”. I hope you do not also label them as arrogant.

Rejecting essential points of doctrine is what is detrimental to saving faith.

I put my faith and trust first and foremost in the teachings of Jesus, not the doctrines of men. As Christians we are obligated to see the beliefs of the Popes, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John and Charles Wesley, Knox, Seabury and other establishers of doctrine through the lens of the teachings of Jesus Christ. I suggest you revisit ’a Kempis and Benedict before labeling me or anyone else in such a derogatory and unchristian way.

[Chytraeus]

Calling someone names is beneath any Christian. I hope you will refrain from it in the future. I referred people to Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan. I also refer you to Thomas ‘a Kempis’ “Imitation of Christ” and finally I refer you to “The Rule of St. Benedict”. I hope you do not also label them as arrogant.

Rejecting essential points of doctrine is what is detrimental to saving faith.

I put my faith and trust first and foremost in the teachings of Jesus, not the doctrines of men. As Christians we are obligated to see the beliefs of the Popes, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John and Charles Wesley, Knox, Seabury and other establishers of doctrine through the lens of the teachings of Jesus Christ. I suggest you revisit ’a Kempis and Benedict before labeling me or anyone else in such a derogatory and unchristian way.

So what makes 'a Kempis and Benedict more trustworthy that Luther et al? Besides, although I am proud to bare the name Lutheran, my doctrine is based upon the Word of God, not the words of Luther. It is Paul who said that the law holds all under bondage (no exceptions even for the really pious) so that salvation might be of grace, and not of works. It is Jesus who said that he who breaks one point of the law has broken all of the law, and it is God who inspired Ezekiel to write, "The soul who sins, he will die." I stand with Paul and say, "If anyone preaches to you any other gospel other than the one you received from us (that salavtion is by faith in Christ alone), let him be accursed." St. Peter said that there is no other name under heaven by which men must be saved.

With all of that said, it is impossible that the story of the Good Samaritan contradicts what God has said in other places, so to base your soteriology upon a missunderstanding of this one parable is either ignorance or arrogance. You insisted that you were not ignorant, so that leaves little other choice. Jesus said as much to the Pharisees after he healed the man who was born blind. They said, "Are you saying that we are blind?" To which He replied, "No, if you were blind then you would be innocent, but since you say you can see, your guilt remains."

You have chosen to argue with the very Word of God itself, which you claim to know very well, and that, my friend, is extreem arrogance. It is not name calling, it is a statment of fact. So, instead of continuing to defend yourself, repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, so that you might be saved. Then, go and preach this Gospel of peace to your dear, lost Muslim friend, before it is too late. Scripture says that it is given for a man once to die, and after that comes the judgement. Therefore, today is the proper day to believe.

[Howie]

So what makes 'a Kempis and Benedict more trustworthy that Luther et al?I did not compare them in trustworthiness to anyone, I simply suggest that you revisit them because I am not alone in my thinking and you had labeled that thinking “arrogant” which I found and still find rather unchristian a comment. We have much to learn from 'a Kempis and Benedict and Luther, it is not an either/or.

I stand with Paul and say, "If anyone preaches to you any other gospel other than the one you received from us (that salavtion is by faith in Christ alone), let him be accursed." St. Peter said that there is no other name under heaven by which men must be saved.I look first to what Jesus says and see Paul’s words through the lens of Jesus teachings, so we do differ there.

With all of that said, it is impossible that the story of the Good Samaritan contradicts what God has said in other places, so to base your soteriology upon a missunderstanding of this one parable is either ignorance or arrogance. I notice that you just descend into personal invective – is that the teaching of Paul or Peter?

What do you think the parable of the Good Samaritan is about? I suggested that you look at it because it may well be that what you believe "God has said in other places" is mistaken.

You insisted that you were not ignorant, so that leaves little other choice. Jesus said as much to the Pharisees after he healed the man who was born blind. They said, "Are you saying that we are blind?" To which He replied, "No, if you were blind then you would be innocent, but since you say you can see, your guilt remains."Jesus also said, “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.”

You have chosen to argue with the very Word of God itself, which you claim to know very well, and that, my friend, is extreem arrogance. I am not arguing, I am discussing. You claim that your view of the word of God is the right view… there must be an adjective to describe that.

It is not name calling, it is a statment of fact. So, instead of continuing to defend yourself, repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, so that you might be saved. Then, go and preach this Gospel of peace to your dear, lost Muslim friend, before it is too late. Scripture says that it is given for a man once to die, and after that comes the judgement. Therefore, today is the proper day to believe.You have not engaged in a serious discussion of anything. If I am in need of guidance, your words are of no help. I humbly suggest that you reread your words to me and see if the attitude displayed in those words reflect what you consider Christian deportment.

All the best.

[kaine diatheke]

Kaine,

Thanks for your response. I know that the doctrine of the Trinity does not deny the unity of God. And your scriptural references are very interesting and are very relevant. There are many things that take this same pattern - creation account, creation of man, marriage and procreation(as you state), Christ and His Church,.....and most importantly Christ in [us], the hope of glory. But as you say, this doesn't prove trinitarianism - and I'm not convinced by this pattern of such a thing. In fact I'm more swayed the other way - oddly perhaps. In each of these things we see the picture of 'two' [becoming] 'one' - as opposed to three that are distinct from 'eternity past' and remianing 'distinct' intil this present time. I guess this is where the crux lies with me.

If Trinity was simply a term referring to 'father, Son, and Spirit' I would think nothing of it. But the heart of this doctrine states this: 'three distinct persons existing in eternity past' - Lutheran Church MS. This is never even closely hinted to in all of scripture. But not this only....the same Church confesses this: '...no one actually [knows] for sure...' So what they are confessing amounts to this: '....God is this!:...., but we don't know for sure...' - and still they require strict adherence to this doctrine with the implied threat of condemnation from God if we don't accept it by 'faith'. Now, even the most casual observer, if he is honest, must at least say ....hmmmm.... to this.

Another reason for doubting: The same confession (LCMS) teaches that ALL revelation is sealed up by Christ and the Apostles, meaning, 'there is no more revelation outside of Scripture'. Yet concerning the doctrine of the Trinity they say that it was [revealed] to the saints some time AFTER the first century (before the Catholic Church became corrupt). This just doesn't jive with common sense - yet the 'condemnation' for denying the Trinity still stands. They will EXCOMMUNICATE YOU if you deny this doctrine - but I could be an ADULTERER or even GAY and they would allow me to stay as long as I kept confessing my sin and was sorry and kept trying to change. What's up with that??? Is a sound mind in reality 'deceived'? It sure seems that way to me.

I my opinion this doctrine (and others) create the illusion of knowledge and diverts from the obedience of Faith - which results in actual knowledge (...if you obey My commands, then you will know...). The end result of this, in my estimation, is a shift in [works]. That is, one works according to knowledge, another apart from it - which would explain in part why Christians are not unified in the faith. Tha illusion of knowdge divides since each will have a different illusion. But God is one, thus not divided; and His Spirit bring unity, not division. Does this make sense?

In conclusion I would have to say (at this point) that the doctrine of the trinity is at the very least non-essential. The way I see it, anyway. Thanks again for your response....merry [Christ]mas!

Peace in the Lord


spitndirt,

No problem. Thanks for your honesty in expressing your doubt. It sounds like you've had some experience w/ the Lutheran Church MS. As far as what their doctrinal statement says; that does sound a little inconsistent but Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, and many other denominations accept Trinitarianism without that kind of inconsistency and would also defrock you for moral abberance.

Anyway, I did say in my last post that that didn't prove Trinitarianism outright, but as I said, I think it at least opens the door for it. Would you be open to discussing it with you further, either here or on another thread?

Kaine Diatheke

[Spiritus Naturae]

I would think that the understanding that Scripture is indeed, "God-breathed" would be an important point on which Christians would need to be in one accord about. That the text of Scripture is a sufficient and complete revelation of God and His will and that we can trust the text itself as reliable for all things regarding doctrine and the like.

Agreed? Or do I make absolutely no sense as usual? :demure:

[Aletheia]

I think a person can come to Christ, and some time later, come to realize that he's God.

That's what has happened to me. It's been a long road and as an ex-JW, I'm thankful for the patience and humility that was offered me (rather than arrogance) at a time when I still considered myself a unitarian.

[James Peter]

I would think that the understanding that Scripture is indeed, "God-breathed" would be an important point on which Christians would need to be in one accord about. That the text of Scripture is a sufficient and complete revelation of God and His will and that we can trust the text itself as reliable for all things regarding doctrine and the like.

Agreed? Or do I make absolutely no sense as usual? :demure:


Not essential. Plenty of different models of 'revelation' exist and have existed in the church and I really don't think that any single one of them is essential. Heck, you could take the position that the scriptures are simply human testimony to the activity of God without any direct inspiration and still be a christian in my opinion (as an example of an extreme position which is around the boundary). The equation of Scripture = Word of God is relatively modern and really is quite flawed. Scripture is Scripture, and Scripture is useful but the emphasis should be on Christ not on a collection of ancient texts. It is dangerous to equate the advice of Solomon with the command of God (as one example).

Living Logos, not written logoi.

[jimmybob479]

That's what has happened to me. It's been a long road and as an ex-JW, I'm thankful for the patience and humility that was offered me (rather than arrogance) at a time when I still considered myself a unitarian.

That's cool. Yea, TO what KParis was quoting, I agree too. In my mind atleast I believe that believing Jesus is God would be a lot more important than holding the doctrine of the trinity. I've seen a lot of people put trinity as primary non-essential. When someone comes to faith in Christ i doubt they'd understand it, I still don't understand it.

[Jaltus]

Howie,

I might be starting a new thread in asking this, and for that I apologize to the current thread, but why would you read the words of Paul through the words of Christ? My question is a simple historical one: Paul's words were written down before those of Christ were (at least in the form found in the Gospels). Thus, what you are holding to are not the exact words of Christ, rather they are te remembrances of the apostles or their close associates AFTER Paul had already written his letters (or most of them).

Thus, it makes little historical sense to use Jesus' words as the keystone through which to read everything else. After all, it seems you are saying that the words of Jesus are more important than the rest of Scripture, and then one must ask what you think of the Gospel narratives, since those are not the words of Christ but rather the actions of Christ as reported by the apostles or other close associates.

[Aletheia]

That's cool. Yea, TO what KParis was quoting, I agree too. In my mind atleast I believe that believing Jesus is God would be a lot more important than holding the doctrine of the trinity. I've seen a lot of people put trinity as primary non-essential. When someone comes to faith in Christ i doubt they'd understand it, I still don't understand it.

In a strange round-about way I actually came to believe in the Trinity before I came to accept that Jesus is part of that Trinity (a long story). Now I not only accept it, the Incarnation is central to my faith.

[Howie]

Howie,

I might be starting a new thread in asking this, and for that I apologize to the current thread, but why would you read the words of Paul through the words of Christ? My question is a simple historical one: Paul's words were written down before those of Christ were (at least in the form found in the Gospels). Thus, what you are holding to are not the exact words of Christ, rather they are te remembrances of the apostles or their close associates AFTER Paul had already written his letters (or most of them).

Thus, it makes little historical sense to use Jesus' words as the keystone through which to read everything else. After all, it seems you are saying that the words of Jesus are more important than the rest of Scripture, and then one must ask what you think of the Gospel narratives, since those are not the words of Christ but rather the actions of Christ as reported by the apostles or other close associates.Sorry I did not see this response earlier. I agree -- start a thread.

There are staggering consequences to relegating the teachings of Jesus to a secondary position behind the writings of Paul or anyone else.

[Chytraeus]

Not essential. Plenty of different models of 'revelation' exist and have existed in the church and I really don't think that any single one of them is essential. Heck, you could take the position that the scriptures are simply human testimony to the activity of God without any direct inspiration and still be a christian in my opinion (as an example of an extreme position which is around the boundary). The equation of Scripture = Word of God is relatively modern and really is quite flawed. Scripture is Scripture, and Scripture is useful but the emphasis should be on Christ not on a collection of ancient texts. It is dangerous to equate the advice of Solomon with the command of God (as one example).

Living Logos, not written logoi.

Wow, this causes me to have a completely new image of you. It is one thing to say that belief in the Scriptures as the inspired Word of God is not essential to salvation, but what you are proposing is quite different.

First of all, you say that the idea of the Scriptures as the "Word of God is relatively modern and really is quite flawed." I never knew that St. Paul was a modernist.

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Or even Jesus, for that matter.

But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.' "

So, Scripture was the word of God for Jesus and it was inspired for Paul, but these are "relatively modern concepts that are really quite flawed?" I've heard these kinds of statements before, but rarely by one who claimed to be a conservative Christian.

Of course, the statment is based upon the fact that the argument for the inerrancy and inspiration of all Scripture is relatively recent. This is not because no one believed these things before the conservatives and fundamentalists began argue for them, it is becuase everyone believed them before the liberals claimed that is was uneducated and unmodern to continue being so simplistic (at least all Chriatians did). Therefore, there was no reason to argue the point within the church, for on one within the church ever challenged the point until the 1800s. Of course, there were those outside the church who did not believe that the Bible was God's Word, but there was no point in arguing with them. What was of upmost importance for them was preaching the Gospel of the forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake. Once they came to believe that, the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture was just a natural consequence. It took us modern people to come up with the idea that book could have serious flaws in it and still be trustworthy on matters of faith. Before modernism, faith could never be seperated from reality in that way.

[jimmybob479]

Just as an update-

Christian Research Journal's last two issues have had a 2-part piece on essential doctrines. The first takes a historical standpoint - and uses the creeds to show that there is a general consensis (sp?) within the major traditions of Christianity on what the essentials are and were. The second was taking a more logical approach - the approach he believed more sound - and he really blew me away. He divided everything up extremely well and connected the dots. He talked about all different kinds of essentials - those that must be true for our salvation to even be possible, those that we must believe to be true. He talked about how although some must be true for us to be saved, we don't necessarily have to believe in them in order to be. A lot of great diction and well-written. It's really helped complete the picture in my mind about essentials and such and complimented what i've learned on my own. Also at the end talks about Catholics and how they are historically orthodox and seems to quotes their views on how grace is essential and key. So although he believes they are wrong, he also believes that someone who officially follows RC dogma can be saved.

Another article (that can be found online:. Here's the link http://www.apologeticsindex.org/d01.html )
talks about determining orthodoxy and heresy. Doesn't attack any specific denominations or anything. A great read for protestant, catholics, eastern orthodox and anyone.

Also something to keep in mind is that the first article only mentions doctrine- the "notia", cognitive part of true, living, saving faith. The second article I believe connects it all together more.

[Amazing Rando]

Howie,

I might be starting a new thread in asking this, and for that I apologize to the current thread, but why would you read the words of Paul through the words of Christ? My question is a simple historical one: Paul's words were written down before those of Christ were (at least in the form found in the Gospels). Thus, what you are holding to are not the exact words of Christ, rather they are te remembrances of the apostles or their close associates AFTER Paul had already written his letters (or most of them).

Thus, it makes little historical sense to use Jesus' words as the keystone through which to read everything else. After all, it seems you are saying that the words of Jesus are more important than the rest of Scripture, and then one must ask what you think of the Gospel narratives, since those are not the words of Christ but rather the actions of Christ as reported by the apostles or other close associates.

Hiya Big J- you've certainly got a point about Paul's letters being written prior to the gospels, but at the same time, you seem to forget about the prevalence of the oral teachings of and about Jesus circulating throughout the church as kerygma, even before Paul had written. I've read persuasive studies about just how drastically Paul's theology and ethics echo (without quoting, of course) the words of Christ in the gospels. I think that by the time he began writing his epistles, Paul had become deeply steeped in the teachings of Jesus, and statements echoing those of Christ can be found all throughout his letters. This can be seen even more explicitly in the epistle of James, but Paul's writings are crammed full of allusions and subtle inferences about the words of Jesus.

In this way, I think reading Paul through the lens of Christ is just as important as allowing Paul to speak on his own terms. Paul was a faithful apostle of his Lord- he certainly did not arrive at his moral guidance in a vacuum, but instead, tailored the situational responses to his churchs' inquiries in his letters to allign themselves with what he believed Christ would have said to them.

This same thing can be seen in early postcanonical Christian tradition- remember the Didache? Utterly crammed with the teachings of Jesus, even without explicitly citing them as such.