Minimal beliefs for Christian

[Albion]

Not that we cannot sin, or act stupidly or impulsively and offend God or our brethren (1 Jn 1:8), for we, after all, are still human, but the kingdom in which we live—the kingdom of the born-again believer—is a world free of the sin of idolatry and the constraints of the law. It is a world free of the bonds that Jesus liberated us from. Reconciled to God, as Paul declares (Rm 5:11), Christians are liberated from the law. So therefore, though they may sin, sin is not counted against them (Rm 5:13).

I agree with that, but in other words, born again people are sinners because they do sin and are not sinless or sin-proofed.

 

[Residential Bob]

I agree with that, but in other words, born again people are sinners because they do sin and are not sinless or sin-proofed.

I guess we can say that if you sin you're a sinner. Mere semantics.

But the New Testament writers are not referring to the saints as sinners. The sinners are the Old Covenant people, not the Christians.

When Paul told the Roman Christians that they had fallen short of the glory of God, he was addressing Old Covenant Israelites who had actually fallen short of the glory of God (or people once bound to the law). He was not addressing you and me.

 

[Albion]

I guess we can say that if you sin you're a sinner. Mere semantics.

While I don't see a need to argue over it, the difference between being a sinner and being sinless is not mere semantics.

But the New Testament writers are not referring to the saints as sinners. The sinners are the Old Covenant people, not the Christians.

That's not correct to say, either.

 

[Residential Bob]

That's not correct to say, either.

On the contrary, that is quite correct.

 

[Albion]

This may help:
Do Christians sin?

 

[Residential Bob]

This may help:
Do Christians sin?

It doesn't help at all.

I know Christians sin.

 

[Robban]

Bob,
you been watching too much TV, haha.

 

[Uber Genius]

Well, there's a problem already. Jesus didn't write down anything, and the sources we do possess are
A) second-hand interpretations of primary sources (if we are VERY generous and assume that the synoptics adapt a direct eyewitness account), and
B) contradict each other.
Was the historical Jesus the cautious preacher of the synoptics, swearing people he had healed to secrecy and avoiding Jerusalem throughout his ministry up to his final days?
Or was he the Paulinist god-man from the gospel of John, who frequented Jerusalem all the time and basically not only proclaimed his messiah-status from the rooftops, but also claimed to be God Incarnate?

I'm pretty confident that at least *some* of what we find in the synoptics is based on people's memories of a real, historical person. But what exactly qualifies as historical and what is the kind of mythmaking and embellishment that *always* takes place after venerated founders pass away is hard to determine.

Too much zeightgeist the movie and too little scholarship.

Nice straw man though, but the straw is showing.

Even Bart Erhman and Dominic Crossen, two leading Jesus. Scholars who are atheists so have no axe to grind, agree with the minimal facts.

Bart goes so far in his paperback release of Misquoting Jesus as to claim despite all the variants no major tenet or doctrine of Christianity is false. Of course that is buried in the notes second of the second edition as it destroys the apparent thesis of the book.

 

[Uber Genius]

Consider:

"I bought some 2x4s, and was going to build a platform, but it rained.

Martha said, you know, don't assemble the floor wet if you want the paint to stick in the gaps between the boards."

Ok, does it matter to you when Martha said what she is being reported to have said? Was it before I bought the 2x4s? After?

I did write that 2nd....

If Ralph says instead a noticeably differing account -- that he saw me talking to Martha last week, thus before this rainy day (not during)....is that a "contradiction"?

From the writing style of the Gospel of John, from the first chapter even, we already have a feeling this is not about a chronological order, if we are paying attention to the style of writing. It's a relational style of writing, presenting what matters to something else together in sequence. A sequence of meaning primarily, instead of primarily a chronological event sequence.

But let's consider the most interesting question -- what about when details differ between accounts?

Experiment: In a large college psychology class, someone runs on stage from a side door and grabs the professor's laptop off the table and runs away with it out the side door.
The professor immediately tells the class to all write down a description of what happened, and the appearance and clothing, etc., of the thief.

Do you already know what happens?

The accounts from the eye witnesses differ.

If they are real accounts, they do not agree on everything.

So, when several accounts broadly report mostly the same thing, but each has some differences in details -- is that a cause to doubt the accounts?

It's a routine reality that if you have several people witness something, and later give an account of it, they will each have unique details, and some overlap, in their accounts. They will often have differing details that don't seem to agree. Some will even report entirely contradicting details, such as blond hair vs dark hair, etc.

If the accounts were just some consensus version everyone is agreeing to say, they would all align perfectly on details.

But, not real accounts.

It's the overlap -- what various eye witness accounts mostly agree on -- that's when I know I'm hearing a fact, not a misperception. If you are as skeptical as me, then you could simply use the intersection set -- what they all agree on.

But then there is the overlap, and what it says -- does it make sense in some powerful way that is meaningful.

You tell me:

"Love your neighbor as yourself"

Does that mean anything significant to you?

It took a lot of reading in history for me to eventually come back to this famous saying and suddenly realize how important it is for any possibility of lasting peace.

An deterrence by superior force (as today), or an armistice (as often happens), is only a pause between potential new war waiting somewhere in the future.

But lasting peace is very different -- it's based on forgiving even though the other side, other nation, other group, other person hasn't fully earned forgiveness, but is only willing to try for peace, without being perfect in our eyes...

Some objections aren't even worth engaging as any scholarly research would have convinced an intellectually honest person that they are false. But your continued grace in taking these spurious claims at face value is to be lauded. I don't possess your patience.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Too much zeightgeist the movie and too little scholarship.

LOL. Nice try, but I don't watch conspiracy tripe.
For a recent source I read, see Reza Aslan's "Zealot: the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth".
But as far as the scholarship is concerned: I first became acquainted with historical-critical exegesis in school (in religious education classes, no less). It's not a controversial approach.

 

[Uber Genius]

LOL. Nice try, but I don't watch conspiracy tripe.
For a recent source I read, see Reza Aslan's "Zealot: the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth".
But as far as the scholarship is concerned: I first became acquainted with historical-critical exegesis in school (in religious education classes, no less). It's not a controversial approach.

Makes sense.
Aslan is a professor of creative writing at UC Riverside!
Is a Muslim that ignores the bulk of Jesus scholarship and yes even that from the Historical-critical camp such as atheist Dominic Crossen, and Marcus Borg.

So that is tantamount to citing Michael Moore as the source or your understanding of conservative politics in the last quartile of the 20th century.

Zeitgeist may actually be more accurate.

 

[FireDragon76]

Of course I am aware of CF's use of the Nicene Creed to define the minimal beliefs of a Christian, but I wanted to get everybody's ideas for a set of beliefs where removal of any one of them makes the "Christian" label no longer applicable. Also this set of beliefs should be something that the historical Jesus would approve.

I'm asking because I keep thinking I believe in Christianity until I listen to people define Christianity. I continue to pray and think in Christian ways, but I disbelieve almost everything that most people require for Christians to believe.

If you pray and think in Christian ways, you are a Christian by your own self-understanding. Do not let other peoples narrow orthodoxy define your horizons.

 

[AvgJoe]

Replying to the OP, I was thinking in terms of the needed essentials of Christianity that a group would have to affirm in order to be considered Christian.

The minimal essential beliefs for salvation/to become a Christian/to be saved:

1) Believe you’re are a sinner. (Romans 3:23, 5:12; 1 John 1:10)

2) Change your mind about Jesus (repent).

• Jesus said: “…unless you repent (have a change of mind that results in a change of action), you will all perish and be lost eternally. (Luke 13:5)
• …now God charges all people everywhere to repent. (Acts 17:30)

3) Believe the Gospel, that Jesus Christ died for you, was buried and rose from the dead.

• We are made right in God’s sight when we trust in Jesus Christ to take away our sins. And we all can be saved in the same way, no matter who we are or what we have done. For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God’s anger against us. We are made right with God when we believe that Jesus shed His blood, sacrificing His Life for us. (Romans 3:22, 25)
• For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9)

4) Confess Jesus as Lord.

• For it is believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved. (Romans 10:10)
• For anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.(Romans 10:13)

True enough, AvgJoe, but I think some of this is built more on tradition than on scripture.

No, it is built off the Scriptures quoted in the post.

We are not all sinners.

Are you speaking of Christians? My post is speaking of unbelievers/non-Christians, not Christians.

...the sinners the New Testament speaks of were those under the law who violated the law (which, of course, are just those under the law). The sinners were the Israelites before Christ.

Paul disagrees with you. He said that both Jews and Gentiles (everyone) are under sin, thus sinners.

9 Well then, should we conclude that we Jews are better than others? No, not at all, for we have already shown that all people, whether Jews or Gentiles, are under the power of sin. Romans 3:9 (NLT)​

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

You know, reading all of this just drives home how far I have grown beyond the religion I was raised in, and how little inclination I have to ever return to it.

It pains me to see people conceive of themselves and others in terms of fundamental misanthropy, as if the essence of being human is metaphysical/moral inadequacy - and then providing the most profoundly shallow, gruesome and lazy solution to it by claiming that a human sacrifice somehow absolves people of all responsibility.

 

[Uber Genius]

If you pray and think in Christian ways, you are a Christian by your own self-understanding. Do not let other peoples narrow orthodoxy define your horizons.

Why would "our own self-understanding," be coherent?

When I was in kindergarten and I claimed 2+2 = 5 (I never claimed to be a smart child), my teacher would gently correct me rather than say, "that is correct Uber by your own self-understanding."

If we use your approach for knowing Christian doctrine via our "own self-understanding," how aren't we in danger of making knowledge relative to the knower?

If true then we must affirm that there are no objective truths (truths not relevant or dependent on the knower).
Since the most important truths are those dealing with meaning and origin and destiny.

Why not suggest that one follow a center set of beliefs common to orthodox Christianity. Jesus was a real person who died for our sins and rose again. He has given us some revelation about how to come into relation with him and how to let the HS guide our lives.

Inside of a smaller framework one could argue that there is A: an objective basis for Christian beleif
And B: that there were only a handful of required beliefs and great freedom to gain more knowledge as one matures in their relationship with God.

 

[FireDragon76]

Why would "our own self-understanding," be coherent?

When I was in kindergarten and I claimed 2+2 = 5 (I never claimed to be a smart child), my teacher would gently correct me rather than say, "that is correct Uber by your own self-understanding."

This is a category confusion. Christianity is a matter of faith, not objectivity. The truths of Christianity are not necessarily the same as saying "2+2=4".

Inside of a smaller framework one could argue that there is A: an objective basis for Christian beleif
And B: that there were only a handful of required beliefs and great freedom to gain more knowledge as one matures in their relationship with God.

The objective basis for Christian belief ought to be the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth. That in my mind, leaves room for a very generous orthodoxy.

You know, reading all of this just drives home how far I have grown beyond the religion I was raised in, and how little inclination I have to ever return to it.

I think growth is part of being human, no one should condemn you for seeking more truth. Certain kinds of religion are little more than training wheels, but eventually we learn to ride on our own.

It pains me to see people conceive of themselves and others in terms of fundamental misanthropy, as if the essence of being human is metaphysical/moral inadequacy - and then providing the most profoundly shallow, gruesome and lazy solution to it by claiming that a human sacrifice somehow absolves people of all responsibility.

This is a big challenge to conventional Anglo-American religion. We are no longer children afraid of the dark. Still, I think identifying with the Christian tradition is worth doing, because it provides a place for community-building and for many people it also provides a moral or spiritual foundation for their lives. But we should be careful overstating the claims of what the Church is and what the Church can do.

I do know the people at my church do not live irresponsibly. We have freedom, but we also live with responsibility. This may sound paradoxical but it is resolved through our understanding of vocation.

 

[FireDragon76]

Those first century followers of Jesus did not have "the Creed". It's something that took a good 400 years to fully develop. I guess they didn't have the answer as well?

A creed is nothing more than a confession of faith. The earliest Christians did have creeds, the most basic being "Jesus is Lord", "Christ is risen", etc.

 

[dlamberth]

A creed is nothing more than a confession of faith. The earliest Christians did have creeds, the most basic being "Jesus is Lord", "Christ is risen", etc.

I think it was pretty mixed. In those early years there were a number of differing ideas of Jesus Christ through out the region. That's why it took centuries for it to all wash out into a single statement of faith. And even now there are still differing ideas.

 

[Uber Genius]

This is a category confusion. Christianity is a matter of faith, not objectivity. The truths of Christianity are not necessarily the same as saying "2+2=4".

Firstly the claim about "Christian Doctrine," is not a claim that an examination of how people interpreted Christianity is objectively true!

We find no cases in any human knowledge where such alignment exists except perhaps in mathematics and a few trivia facts in the hard sciences.

My point was that there is a person that existed Jesus of Nazareth and that he claimed to be, and was understood by his followers and his enemies alike to be the messiah is "OBJECTIVELY TRUE OR FALSE."

That his followers were agreed on a center set of facts that could be evaluated to be true or false by their hearers. That Paul argued facts from the OT, and facts of history known to be true by his Jewish hearers. That some of them were compelled to respond based on these arguments.



Those are ontic not epistemic claims! They don't depend on someone's view of knowledge for their truth-value.

Just like 2 + 2 =4 is an ontic claim.

Jesus doesn't become God or creator of heaven and earth due to our belief!

Our self-understanding (epistemic claims) does nothing to change what exists (ontic claims).

Christian Faith is not in "whatever our self-understanding is!" Christian Faith has a locus in history, and its core teaching are known objectively.

Christian faith was in the person of Jesus, and his claims.

Use of "Faith" you describe above is anachronistic. Pistis was similar to fidelis meaning "trustworthy."

When we say Semper Fidelis we mean always trustworth not "these guys are always choosing to ignore the data and just acting on whatever they choose to believe is true despite what is objectively the case or recon tells them or the mission goals, etc."

So "faith" in scripture is trusting in claims that were objectively true. In fact the occasional nature of Paul's epistles were, in the main, Paul decrying other teachers false self-understandings about Jesus, the gospel, sanctification, etc.

The objective basis for Christian belief ought to be the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth. That in my mind, leaves room for a very generous orthodoxy.

So Jesus, and his claims as taught by his followers since Jesus didn't actually write anything. So yes but if my self-understand is that Jesus was just a good man...well that is objectively false.

If jesus was adopted by God and elevated to "a god," again my self-understanding is false objectively.

If my understanding was that Jesus was a God and his Father was another God, then that understanding is again objectively false.

If my self-understanding is that I can get to heaven by way of being righteous through keeping the OT law, then that understanding is again objectively false.

Now like school, we learn a few truths in kindergarten and then more accrue in grade school and so on. It seems that when people just come to the Lord, they should be engaging a few truths. But for someone who has been a Christian for decades and they can't articulate the gospel, or the nature of the atonement, or man's innate nature, well then we have a different problem altogether.

Center set to begin with, followed by an ever-broadening understanding of Christ's work and our work with him.

But I allow children to reason as children. That is I don't stumble newcomers to Christ with the various doctrines of dyophysite christology or distinctions of say homoousios and homoiousios in describing Jesus' nature.

 

[FireDragon76]

Firstly the claim that there is a person that existed Jesus of Nazareth and that he claimed to be, and was understood by his followers and his enemies alike to be the messiah is "OBJECTIVELY TRUE OR FALSE."

That is an ontic not epistemic claim!

Just like 2 + 2 =4 is an ontic claim.

Jesus doesn't become God or creator of heaven and earth due to our belief!

Our self-understanding (epistemic claims) does nothing to change what exists (ontic claims).

Christian Faith is not in "whatever our self-understanding is!"

Christian faith was in the person of Jesus, and his claims.

Use of "Faith" you describe above is anachronistic. Pistis was similar to fidelis meaning "trustworthy."

When we say Semper Fidelis we mean always trustworth not "these guys are always choosing to ignore the data and just acting on whatever they choose to believe is true despite what is objectively the case or recon tells them or the mission goals, etc."

So "faith" in scripture is trusting in claims that were objectively true. In fact the occasional nature of Paul's epistles were, in the main, Paul decrying other teachers false self-understandings about Jesus, the gospel, sanctification, etc.

So Jesus, and his claims as taught by his followers since Jesus didn't actually write anything. So yes but if my self-understand is that Jesus was just a good man...well that is objectively false.

If jesus was adopted by God and elevated to "a god," again my self-understanding is false objectively.

If my understanding was that Jesus was a God and his Father was another God, then that understanding is again objectively false.

If my self-understanding is that I can get to heaven by way of being righteous through keeping the OT law, then that understanding is again objectively false.

Now like school, we learn a few truths in kindergarten and then more accrue in grade school and so on. It seems that when people just come to the Lord, they should be engaging a few truths. But for someone who has been a Christian for decades and they can't articulate the gospel, or the nature of the atonement, or man's innate nature, well then we have a different problem altogether.

Center set to begin with, followed by an ever-broadening understanding of Christ's work and our work with him.

But I allow children to reason as children. That is I don't stumble newcomers to Christ with the various doctrines of dyophysite christology or distinctions of say homoousios and homoiousios in describing Jesus' nature.

Your mistake is putting ontology ahead of epistemology. One could always beg the question of how we know about essence or being at all, and hence the general skepticism of essentialist accounts of reality now days.