Minimal beliefs for Christian

cloudyday2 said:

That is an interesting observation. In the gospels Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist and the Holy Spirit descends like a dove, and some scholars suspect that this was originally the point in time when the earliest Christians understood Jesus of Nazareth became Jesus the Messiah.

Many modern Charismatic and Pentecostal churches look suspiciously on anybody claiming to be "born again" who doesn't also claim to be "spirit-filled" (typically evidenced by speaking in tongues after baptism).

Also, the Essenes and many early Christians apparently believed that some people were elect and others were not. It was not a choice made by the person. If that person wasn't elected by God then that person couldn't join.

Click to expand...

Cornelius and household certainly made no choice,
while Peter was talking, boom, it just about knocked them of their feet, Or so it would seem.
Acts 10:44[

dzheremi said:

Then it would seem you're not really interested in getting the answer to your question, because that is indeed the answer (the Creed).

Click to expand...

Exactly.

cloudyday2 said:

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but I wanted to get everybody's ideas for a set of beliefs where removal of any one of them makes the "Christian" label no longer applicable.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.

Click to expand...

On some level such minimalism is probably impossible. Or at the very least one isn't going to get some highly minimal definition that all parties can agree upon.

For example I could argue that, at the very least, Christianity requires belief:

1) That Jesus is the Christ (Messiah) and
2) He is Lord.

But then, of course, what about Jesus being the Son of God? What does it actually mean that Jesus is the Christ, what is "Christ"? What does it mean to say this Jesus is Lord?

And, if anything, we're just replaying history again as it unfolded in the early centuries of the Christian era. These are exactly the sorts of questions that continued to be asked, raised, answered, defined, refined, etc as the demarcations between orthodoxy and heresy were made.

-CryptoLutheran

dzheremi said:

Then it would seem you're not really interested in getting the answer to your question, because that is indeed the answer (the Creed).

Click to expand...

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?

mkgal1 said:

I don't see any qualifiers or conditions here - do you? If we don't read the story of God (or the life of Jesus) as being about His love for us....then, I'd say, we've missed the basic tenets of Christianity (but that's just my opinion).

1 John 4:8; 4:16 ~ Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.​

Click to expand...

Well, I won't say you're wrong that the statement "God is Love" should be on the list of minimal beliefs which Christians should affirm, but I would insist that to say that God is Love with qualifiers and contexts isn't to also say that God isn't Love.

So, we can both agree that the belief that "God is Love" is a necessary one.

dlamberth said:

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?

Click to expand...

This is specious reasoning. It's akin to saying that the scriptures didn't exist before HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic's 39th festal letter of 367 AD (the earliest extant list of the 27-book NT canon).

What we're talking about when we talk about the Creed, or the scriptures, or anything like that which we might point to and say is a standard of our faith is exactly that -- standardization. The immediate environment of the fathers who worked to incorporate into the Creed in its 381 version new portions dealing with (e.g.) the divinity of the Holy Spirit is that there had arisen in the time since the original drafting of the Creed in 325 at Nicaea a sect called by their detractors "Spirit-Fighters" (I'm sure I'd butcher the Greek here to the point where it's not even Google-able...Pneumatomachi? Pneumatomachoi? Something like that), who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. And so the Creed was amended to fight that particular heresy.

Going back in time the original Council of Nicaea in 325 was called to deal with Arius and those of his party, and so the Creed produced there dealt primarily with the errors of his heresy.

There were earlier meetings which in some sources may be recognized as councils, though they were not 'ecumenical' in the sense that councils were beginning in 325 with that of Nicaea ('ecumenical' meaning, in this context, concerning and applying to the Church in the whole inhabited world; sometimes translated as "Universe", which makes it quite fun to say that the Bishop of Alexandria was called Judge of the Universe for the Alexandrian Church's role in setting the date of Pascha/Easter ). There were numerous synods (the more proper name for this kind regionally or specific-church bound council) in places like Phrygia (in 177, to deal with the Montanists/'New Prophecy'), in Rome (in the 140s, to deal with the heretic Marcion and his movement), in Antioch (they had many to deal with many issues of Christology; Wikipedia states that they had more than 30 between 264 and 269), in what is now Spain (Elvira c. 305, which dealt with guidelines for people in various clerical positions, church art, and guidelines for marriage, among other things), etc.

The point is the Church was not without its own means to deal with problems and hash out what was to be believed by all just because the Creed hadn't been written yet, but that does not change the fact that if someone is looking for the most succinct statement of the basics of Christian belief to be held by all who claim that name, they ought to look to the Creed first, because the entire reason it exists is to be such a statement.

klutedavid said:

Very good post though I would add and subtract some of what you wrote.

The primary teaching of the apostles was the belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus the messiah. ( 1 Corinthians 15, Romans 10:9-10, e.t.c.)

One needs to clarify that the verbal confession of the name of Jesus Christ is also necessary. What you speak about in life is that which you really believe in (Romans 10:9).

The goal of the entire teaching of the apostles can be summarized as follows.

1 Timothy 1:5
But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

Faith, love, holiness.

I would exclude the concept of the trinity as essential for salvation.

I would also exclude monotheism as not essential for salvation.

Jesus came to baptize with the fire of the Holy Spirit. So at a lesser level a water baptism but more importantly the Spiritual baptism.

God is love, therefore Jesus and love is what it is all really about.

Click to expand...

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)

dlamberth said:

The Golden Rule.

Click to expand...

That'd make millions of Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, neo-pagans, atheists, Communists, traditional Chinese and what-have-you "Christian".
The golden rule is not a distinctly Christian idea, nor did it originate there.

If I had to define Christianity's "minimum core", it's this:
Jesus is God, died on the cross to redeem mankind, rose from the dead, and will return in the near future* to erect a paradisical Utopia.

(*note that throughout history, believers have virtually ALWAYS held on to the notion that the "end times" were just around the corner, and would arrive in their lifetime. Heck, the New Testament even tells its original readers that it will happen before the last eyewitnesses have passed away. But as with the Jehova's witnesses, the failure to see this prediction become true never stopped people from believing, but instead just led to countless rationalisations of the verses in question.)

cloudyday2 said:

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.

Click to expand...

One of the most helpful possible things to know you are definitely getting what is 'Christian' is going to be (as I bet you'd agree) the teachings that Jesus, the Christ, said (as recorded in the accounts we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John), and that's easier to get then it may seem until you start reading. Because His words are clear, even while they are often deep, and they are so wonderful too. No one understands all at once, but everyone understands things they need right now. And the most crucial things are clear and understandable, and just as amazing today as they were years before.

I'd recommend the NIV translation for first-time readers, and then later the ESV usually, though many other modern translations are perfectly fine.

Halbhh said:

One of the most helpful possible things to know you are definitely getting what is 'Christian' is going to be (as I bet you'd agree) the teachings that Jesus, the Christ, said (as recorded in the accounts we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John), and that's easier to get then it may seem until you start reading. Because His words are clear, even while they are often deep, and they are so wonderful too. No one understands all at once, but everyone understands things they need right now. And the most crucial things are clear and understandable, and just as amazing today as they were years before.

I'd recommend the NIV translation for first-time readers, and then later the ESV usually, though many other modern translations are perfectly fine.

Click to expand...

There is a sign of life in your post,

If Jesus gives life and life in abundance, it makes sense to
"heads up" to what it says about that.

People do not need help 500 years ago,
neither 500 years into the future.

It is now, today, this day today.

Though I am not Christian I do not ridicule what the Almighty can do.

I follow the four expressions of redemption.
"I will bring you out"
"I will save you"
"I will redeem you"
"I will take you to Myself"

(Exodus 6:6-7)

Egypt=boundaries, limitations, bondage,

Jane_the_Bane said:

That'd make millions of Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, neo-pagans, atheists, Communists, traditional Chinese and what-have-you "Christian".
The golden rule is not a distinctly Christian idea, nor did it originate there.

If I had to define Christianity's "minimum core", it's this:
Jesus is God, died on the cross to redeem mankind, rose from the dead, and will return in the near future* to erect a paradisical Utopia.

(*note that throughout history, believers have virtually ALWAYS held on to the notion that the "end times" were just around the corner, and would arrive in their lifetime. Heck, the New Testament even tells its original readers that it will happen before the last eyewitnesses have passed away. But as with the Jehova's witnesses, the failure to see this prediction become true never stopped people from believing, but instead just led to countless rationalisations of the verses in question.)

Click to expand...

Hi Jane, you may already agree, but it's good to remember that *if* the Golden Rule is inherently 'true' (the best possible way to live life among all competing ways), then it follows no one can have created/originated it, but instead it was true already before anyone said any version of it.

Like a law of physics -- it exists before discovered. Unlike a work of art, it's definite/precise/unalterable before ever found. Though like a law of physics, it's possible to first get an incomplete version, and then later a complete version(!), the proactive and 'in everything' version: Matthew 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets.

Also, if you consider: Matthew 16:28 Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

Then you should of course consider what happens immediately next in Matthew, in the next few verses:

1 After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.

4 Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.”

5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”

6 When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified.

cloudyday2 said:

No, you read the OP correctly. I am NOT interested in the various theologies that have grown over the centuries. I am interested in what might be the minimum. Like if we take one of these theologies that we inherited and started removing features, at what point is it no longer Christianity?

Click to expand...

Just ONE verse: John 3:16

Frankly, it is a pretty hard verse to believe by itself. But once once that verse is "recognized" (agreed upon), the rest will all come along.

The so-called "believe in Jesus", just mean to believe Jn 3:16 is true.

https://danutm.files.wordpress.com/...nversion-culture-and-cognitive-categories.pdf

Enjoy. I didn't discover Hiebert until the late 1990s but it was "The road less traveled," to be sure.

Halbhh said:

Hi Jane, you may already agree, but it's good to remember that *if* the Golden Rule is inherently 'true' (the best possible way to live life among all competing ways), then it follows no one can have created/originated it, but instead it was true already before anyone said any version of it.

Like a law of physics -- it exists before discovered. Unlike a work of art, it's definite/precise/unalterable before ever found. Though like a law of physics, it's possible to first get an incomplete version, and then later a complete version(!), the proactive and 'in everything' version: Matthew 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets.

Also, if you consider: Matthew 16:28 Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

Then you should of course consider what happens immediately next in Matthew, in the next few verses:

1 After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.

4 Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.”

5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”

6 When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified.

Click to expand...

The depth of this insight will be missed by most I'm afraid. But it was refreshing.

It seems that simply starting with the claims Jesus made about himself is enough. I have dozens of beliefs that I adopted as an early Christian that I now have the intellectual and exegetical maturity to realize are not just false but some at least are incoherent. So my short list is to engage Jesus based on his claims of divinity. This means that he still lives, is still able to answer prayer, is able to guide you to additional truth about yourself, the world, how you should live, where you will go when you die, how to get meaning in life. But that is for him to lead you in. Not for someone to hand you a manual and tell you the test is in two weeks.

If Jesus is serious about sending the HS to lead us into all truth then the relationship with Jesus is the center set. As one becomes more of a disciple more true beliefs about the external world will arise and false beliefs about that world drop away. I know people with great theological depth and accuracy who don't love anyone besides themselves. Knowledge claims about orthodox beliefs are no substitute for Jesus mentoring you.

Caveat: No discipleship, no progress.

Uber Genius said:

It seems that simply starting with the claims Jesus made about himself is enough.

Click to expand...

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.

AvgJoe said:

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)

Click to expand...

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

We are not all sinners. We may sin, but 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.

This may be difficult for many to swallow, but effectively, Christians are not sinners (1 Jn 1:7). They dwell with God on the earth; they walk in the light. Christ has made them new, different than their apostate predecessors.

The law is no longer a hindrance to God’s people, for Christ is its fulfillment (Mt 5:17); that is, he is the end of it, or its culmination (Rom 10:4). Christ came to cause God’s will, as made known in the law, to be obeyed as it should be. Christians, the new Israel endowed with the Holy Spirit, abide in the law by faith, which their predecessors were unable to do on their own. Faith is now the law (Rom 3:27). Righteousness no longer comes through the law, but rather through faith in Jesus Christ (Rom 10:21-22). Christians are righteous.

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). Satan is now cast out of the world (Jn 12:31). God has transferred us from that darkness and into his kingdom (Col 1:13).

I may offend God, but I am not a sinner. The world of the sinner is a world that ended two thousand years ago.

Residential Bob said:

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

We are not all sinners. We may sin, but 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.

This may be difficult for many to swallow, but effectively, Christians are not sinners (1 Jn 1:7). They dwell with God on the earth; they walk in the light. Christ has made them new, different than their apostate predecessors.

The law is no longer a hindrance to God’s people, for Christ is its fulfillment (Mt 5:17); that is, he is the end of it, or its culmination (Rom 10:4). Christ came to cause God’s will, as made known in the law, to be obeyed as it should be. Christians, the new Israel endowed with the Holy Spirit, abide in the law by faith, which their predecessors were unable to do on their own. Faith is now the law (Rom 3:27). Righteousness no longer comes through the law, but rather through faith in Jesus Christ (Rom 10:21-22). Christians are righteous.

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). Satan is now cast out of the world (Jn 12:31). God has transferred us from that darkness and into his kingdom (Col 1:13).

I may offend God, but I am not a sinner. The world of the sinner is a world that ended two thousand years ago.

Click to expand...

In my world "You shall not murder" means you shall not murder.

If you do not like the word "Sin" call it something else,
call it "Perverse",

Robban said:

In my world "You shall not murder" means you shall not murder.

Click to expand...

Amen, Brother.

Same as in my world.

Jane_the_Bane said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...