What would you say are the essentials of the faith? What are the things that must be believed in order to be a Christian? Is the Apostles' Creed a sufficient statement of the Christian faith, or is something additional needed?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Essentials of the faith
- Thread starter CelticRebel
- Start date
- Jan 26, 2007
- 42,307
- 20,972
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
But then you have different views of what that is. For instance, I don't think all of the traditions are what Christ gave us. I think some come from others.
Upvote
0
~Anastasia~
† Handmaid of God †
- Dec 1, 2013
- 31,129
- 17,440
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Would you by chance be asking what is necessary in order to be received into the Orthodox Church?
Or are you asking what beliefs are essential to salvation?
Or are you asking what beliefs are essential to salvation?
Upvote
0
Hmmm... both, I guess. I believe at first I was thinking in terms of beliefs necessary to the Christian faith. In other words, what are the beliefs that make one a Christian.
Upvote
0
- Jan 26, 2007
- 42,307
- 20,972
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
I know you say that, but what evidence do you have to support it?
Upvote
0
Dialogist
Active Member
- Jul 22, 2015
- 341
- 105
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Your question is two-fold:
1. What are the essentials of the faith?
2. What must be believed in order to be a Christian?
I think there are all sorts of ways to answer the first question, but I agree with others who have said that the Nicene Creed (actually, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed) is a concise summary of the essentials of "the faith". It is, in fact, the "Statement of Faith" which CF has adopted and presents in its forum rules (http://www.christianforums.com/help/faith/).
This Creed, as people are sometimes quick to point out, is not found in the Bible. It actually comes out of the tradition of the early Church and was adopted at the 2nd Ecumenical Council in Constantinople, which was convened in the year 381 and attended by 150 Church Fathers. The CF Statement of Faith uses the Creed adopted by this Council verbatim. It is an amendment to an earlier Creed that was adopted at the 1st Ecumenical Council in Nicea, convened in the year 325 by Emperor (St.) Constantine.
These Creeds were not defined sporadically by groups of idle theologians, but rather were the product of the Councils' main work: defending the truth (dogma) of the Church against the pervailing heresies of the day. The 1st Ecumenical Council was called over the Arian heresy, which denied the Divinity of Christ. The 2nd Ecumenical Council was called over the heresy of Macedonius (denying the Divinity of the Holy Spirit) and a number of other heresies. The Creeds were not new dogma defined by the Church (as, for example, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy seems to imply), but rather clarified the "essentials of the faith" in the face of new innovative teachings (i.e. heresies) that were confusing and dividing the faithful.
The Nicene-Constantinapolitan Creed is called the "Symbol of Faith" by Orthodox Christians and is recited in our Morning Prayers and during the Divine Liturgy, among other times of the day and week.
A very thorough Scriptural exposition of the Nicene-Constantinapolitan Creed can be found in St. Philaret of Moscow's Longer Catechism of the Orthodox Church (also available in a nicely bound paperback book from St. John of Kronstadt Press).
I am not sure how I would answer #2, because it depends on how "being a Christian" is defined. Can someone who holds beliefs about Christ (or the Godhead in general) that are NOT true be called a "Christian"? Perhaps in the early Church it was clear who was a Christian and who was not, so there really wasn't any need for any qualifier. Some time during the first millenium so many heretical sects had arisen whose members called themselves "Christian" that the term "Orthodox" needed to qualify the word "Church" to clarify which "Christians" were being referred to. My understanding is that the first recorded use of the term "Orthodox" being prepended to "Church" was used in the Code of Justinian (6th c.) to differentiate between Christians who held the Nicene-Constantipolitan Creed and those who did not.
So I guess one could believe just about anything about Christ and call him or herself a Christian, just not an Orthodox one. This seems to be pretty common today.
Upvote
0
- Jan 26, 2007
- 42,307
- 20,972
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
That's a generic platitude that everyone uses. I mean some hard evidence.
Upvote
0
Matt, I have already given that on some of the "traditions" about which there is no scriptural support.
Upvote
0
- Jan 26, 2007
- 42,307
- 20,972
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
The only one I remember is baptism, which Scripture only supports your position if you choose to read it that way.
Upvote
0
Well, besides infant baptism, I have previously mentioned the ever-virginity of Mary; mandatory celibacy of bishops; widowed priests not allowed to remarry and remain priests. To me, these are peripheral issues, but if they are required beliefs and practices in Orthodoxy, that changes them from peripheral issues to essentials.
Upvote
0
- Jan 26, 2007
- 42,307
- 20,972
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Yeah, to you. What concrete evidence to you have that actually supports your views? You gotta show when these were added, and not just say that they were (which is not a knock, we all do this from time to time)
Upvote
0
- Jan 26, 2007
- 42,307
- 20,972
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
well, bishops being celibate is not dogmatic so that one does not count. there is no theological error in a bishop being married, there is also no theological error in a bishop being unmarried. the reason that we have unmarried bishops is because of the strain of bishop life and married life (the bishop would never be home since he needs to visit his parishes). we have married bishops as saints on our calendar.
as for the ever virginity of Mary, Scripture does not contradict it, and the Protoevangelium of James, oldest recorded copy is from around 145 AD, does support her ever virginity.
as for widowed priests not being allowed to marry and stay a priest, that is also nowhere in Scripture and you don't find it anywhere in the early lives of the earliest Christians.
Upvote
0
~Anastasia~
† Handmaid of God †
- Dec 1, 2013
- 31,129
- 17,440
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
CR ... it occurs to me that you might be helped (on the remarriage of priests at least) to understand a bit of the Orthodox understanding of marriage. I'm hesitant to bring this up though, because I am not sure I can explain it without creating misconceptions.
First - this is NOT DOGMA or a "rule" of the Church. It is an understanding. We do not have "till death do us part" vows in the sacrament of marriage in the Church. The part I want to mention is that this is looked upon as a relationship - not a contract. Much the same as if my mother dies, she is STILL my mother, and I am still her daughter. That relationship does not end just because one of us has died.
While there is no "marriage" after this life, we believe that the relationships we form on earth will still be relationships between people after this life as well. That doesn't really preclude a person from remarrying - because as I said, there will be no "marriage" per se. Yet many Orthodox maintain the love and sense of "relationship" with the one departed and have no desire to "replace" them. That is quite common.
That sort of understanding may make more sense. Ideally, our view of marriage is as a sacrament, the purpose of which is salvation for both members. Each one is to put the salvation of the other and everything they can do in support of that goal as their highest priority in the marriage.
"Replacing" such a relationship ... well, let's just say that I now have an appreciation of why it is so rarely done. And I don't even enjoy such a marriage myself, but I do understand.
I hope that might help, though maybe not immediately. And if I've made any mistakes in explaining, I hope someone will correct me. Thank you all.
First - this is NOT DOGMA or a "rule" of the Church. It is an understanding. We do not have "till death do us part" vows in the sacrament of marriage in the Church. The part I want to mention is that this is looked upon as a relationship - not a contract. Much the same as if my mother dies, she is STILL my mother, and I am still her daughter. That relationship does not end just because one of us has died.
While there is no "marriage" after this life, we believe that the relationships we form on earth will still be relationships between people after this life as well. That doesn't really preclude a person from remarrying - because as I said, there will be no "marriage" per se. Yet many Orthodox maintain the love and sense of "relationship" with the one departed and have no desire to "replace" them. That is quite common.
That sort of understanding may make more sense. Ideally, our view of marriage is as a sacrament, the purpose of which is salvation for both members. Each one is to put the salvation of the other and everything they can do in support of that goal as their highest priority in the marriage.
"Replacing" such a relationship ... well, let's just say that I now have an appreciation of why it is so rarely done. And I don't even enjoy such a marriage myself, but I do understand.
I hope that might help, though maybe not immediately. And if I've made any mistakes in explaining, I hope someone will correct me. Thank you all.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
