The Basics of the Christian Faith

[BBAS 64]

*BUMP*

I think this thread is very important. Thanks Lotar

BBAS

 

[racer]

Please keep this thread going. I'll hold off my .02 until I'm more certain of what you are looking for, Lotar.

Lisa

 

[JVAC]

Here is a beginning list of what I think are the most urgently needed:
Sola Scriptura - which is one of the most frequently attacked, and most frequenty misunderstood
Sola Gratia and Sola Fide
The sinful nature of man

Ephesians 2:8-9 states "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast" NIV

NRSV "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is a gift of God -- not the result of works, so that no one may boast."

KJV "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.



These two verses sumarize the fact of sola gratia and sola fide. One could go through the whole Bible and find all sorts of verses to help support but there is none so succinctly said.

It is by the Grace of God, by his own benevolence that we are saved. This is to be had through faith, a work of the Spirit. Not from works, a work of the flesh. The flesh will be unable to obtain the Grace of God for we are doomed sinners, as discussed before. We need but have faith, which by the help of the Holy Spirit, we obtain the Grace of God.

This Grace would be impossible for us to own had Jesus not willingly given it to us. Paul writes more about this in 2:4-7 "But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions -- it is by grace you ahave been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindess to us in Christ Jesus."

I am going to take this one verse at a time.
2:4 The king James version states this eloquently and I will quote that here, "But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us," It is not of us, it is of God and His infinate love and mercy.
2:5 tells us that we were dead in sins yet do to the fact just stated (2:4) we are vivified in Christ. Paul deemed it necessary to expound "it is by grace you have been saved" another time. He really wants us to grasp this, why else would he repeat himself so much?
2:6 With the love and mercy afore mentioned God raised us up with Christ in heaven. There we will be with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Also important to note is it was "in Christ Jesus", not our merits but his, in him we have all things.
2:7 He did this to show the riches of His Grace, which he showed in Jesus. This was a demonstration of his love and mercy.

God saves, that is what the name Jesus means. God alone saves, we cannot save ourselves, that is the true essence of Sola Gratia and Sola Fide.

 

[seebs]

Yes, original sin, the nature of that sin, and man's inability to do anything but sin appart from the grace of God, recieved by the Holy Spirit by faith in Christ.

Not all Protestant groups accept that; I think that's essentially a Calvinist position, and not all Protestants are Calvinists.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Here is a beginning list of what I think are the most urgently needed:
Sola Scriptura - which is one of the most frequently attacked, and most frequenty misunderstood
Sola Gratia and Sola Fide
The sinful nature of man

I think it's important to acknowledge that there is a range of acceptable opinions on each of these points, and to make it clear to the less knowledgeable believers about whom you are concerned that we don't even agree 100% on the "essentials." On what we consider non-essentials, you will see a much wider range of viewpoints, but you will see some variation even in areas we consider essential, like those listed by Lotar in the OP.

I wonder if it might help if we could perhaps try to describe the range of PRE beliefs on these basics. ISTM, this would help those who are feeling like throwing up their hands and walking away from faith because of arguments between believers. What do some of the rest of you think?

First, I would say that, although there is a large section of PRE Christians who say they oppose creeds, I believe all would agree that the Nicene Creed lists most of the essential doctrines of Christianity. We may disagree on our interpretation of some of its words, but with the exception of the filioque (the phrase "and the Son" which is explained in the Wikipedia article in the link above) it is generally agreed to be correct. IOW, to some protestants "sola scriptura" means the church should never accept anything but the Bible as authoritative, while others say all other truth claims should be checked against scripture.

Since I've already mentioned sola scriptura, let me try to discuss the range of PRE beliefs about scripture. There are some protestants who are called strict inerrantists. They hold that every word of the Bible is empirically true, historically and scientifically, as well as spiritually. Some of these inerrantists even go so far as to hold that a particular translation (usually the KJV) is the sole authority as to all facts. At the other end of the PRE spectrum, some hold the Bible is authoritative in all it teaches, and a touchstone for all spiritual truth, but do not hold it to be inerrant in such areas as science and history. Rather, it is necessary to examine the various genres of literature and the purposes of particular passages to understand what truth it is teaching. (As you can tell by my sig line, I personally tend toward the latter camp.) Sola scriptura (scripture only) means there is no more authoritative source than scripture against which to check statements of spiritual truth. If a creed or tradition contradicts scripture, scripture prevails. However, the Nicene Creed and the Apostle's Creed are held not to contradict scripture, and most protestants (whether they realize it or not) use the theological concepts affirmed in these creeds to help them decide between different possible interpretations of the Bible.

Sola gratia (grace alone) and sola fide (faith alone) refer to the concept that God's acceptance and salvation of human beings is not on the basis of human good works. The primary scripture upon which Protestant Christians base this belief is in Ephesians, chapter 2:

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Again, you will find some variation among PRE Christians, especially WRT sola gratia. Some hold that salvation is entirely determined by God, while others hold it is entirely accomplished by God, but humans have a greater or lesser amount of free will in this process. I.e. most of the disagreement you will see between PRE Chrisitians on sola gratia has to do with whether God alone chooses who will and will not be saved vs. whether humans have freedom to accept or reject God's grace. WRT sola fide, you will find a range of beliefs about the role of human good works. Some say good works are completely irrelevant to faith, while others would say that those who truly have faith will necessarily show evidence of that faith through good works.

The sinful nature of man again is something you will see a range of beliefs about. Scripture says, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." All PRE Christians would agree that by the time a person is able to understand these words, he or she is already a sinner, and has committed sins against God. However, there is some variation in belief about whether very young children are innocent of sin, or if they inherit sin or guilt from their parents.

I thought, for the sake of the goal of this thread not being debate, it might be helpful to take a stab at discussing the concepts in terms of a range of orthodoxy. If anyone thinks I have not accurately described this, you are free to correct me. I think, if I have erred in my descriptions above, it is to the side of being under-inclusive, rather than over-inclusive. I therefore hope no one will reply to this by saying, "No PRE Christian believes X," within the range I have described. I can say that I know PRE Christians whom I respect who hold positions at either end of the range I have described for each of these doctrines. Is this approach helpful at all?

 

[JVAC]

Not all Protestant groups accept that; I think that's essentially a Calvinist position, and not all Protestants are Calvinists.

It is not a "Calvinist" position, even though he does endorse "Total Depravity". This is the position of the Christian Church catholic. It was most decidedly set down by St. Agustine, but it has been around before, and since has held a prominent place in the Christian faith.

 

[Lotar]

Not all Protestant groups accept that; I think that's essentially a Calvinist position, and not all Protestants are Calvinists.

No, not all Protestants accept that, but all Evangelical and Reformed theology accepts it, which is what I am trying to address with this thread. It is a basic premise of Luther, Calvin, and Arminius. It is one of the main reasons behind sola fide, and also one of the reasons why we do not believe it unjust when "good" people do not recieve salvation.

 

[Lotar]

Crazy Liz,

I agree that there are debatable points, but as long as we deal with the basics, and stay away from the predestination and historical accuracy debates, we should be fine. I agree that the creeds would be another good topic.

 

[Crazy Liz]

No, not all Protestants accept that, but all Evangelical and Reformed theology accepts it, which is what I am trying to address with this thread. It is a basic premise of Luther, Calvin, and Arminius. It is one of the main reasons behind sola fide, and also one of the reasons why we do not believe it unjust when "good" people do not recieve salvation.

As I described before, there is a range of beliefs among PRE Christians WRT original sin. I think most PRE Christians could find some sense in which they could affirm "man's inability to do anything but sin appart (sic) from the grace of God, recieved by the Holy Spirit by faith in Christ." However, I find myself having a hard time with the way this is worded, as I believe probably Seebs is, too. Not all PRE Christians would affirm that every act of a non-Christian is sin, although some PRE Christians would say that.

I think all PRE Christians would affirm that sin is part of the human condition that we all find ourselves caught up in. Exactly how and when we become caught up in sin, and the extent to which sin taints actions that appear to be morally good but are done apart from faith are matters of variation in belief.

 

[Lotar]

Could we start another thread for it then? I don't want to debate in this thread.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I understand you don't want debate in this thread. That is why I'm trying to be as inclusive a possible in describing what all PRE Christians believe.

If we want to stay away from debate, one way to do that is to say, quite respectfully, that on a particular point PRE Christians agree or disagree with each other within this general range.

I'm not arguing which veiw of original sin is right or wrong. I'm just pointing out that one of the proposed definitions is too narrow to encompass all PRE Christians. Those younger and less knowledgeable could gain by taking note that although we disagree with each other within this range, we still accept each other as PRE Christians.

 

[Lotar]

See, I'm not trying to address the beliefs of all PRE Christians, just the RE part It would be impossible to lay down anything more than the most basic, Jesus is God, type beliefs, without disagreeing with someone. Evangelical Christians have clearly spelt out beliefs, just most people don't seem to know them. So I am basically just trying to address people who believe in the creeds, sola gratia, sola fide, and sola scriptura. I know there are individual Christians who have unorthodox ideas concerning these, I still accept them as Christians and a Protestants, but that does not mean I accept their beliefs or want to address them in this thread.

1.) There are enough unorthodox ideas spreading around these forums, I am trying to put together a thread that contains orthodox ideas and the reasoning behind them.
2.) If I allow for such a large spectrum, the number of subjects I can address will be limited without starting a debate.

 

[Crazy Liz]

See, I'm not trying to address the beliefs of all PRE Christians, just the RE part It would be impossible to lay down anything more than the most basic, Jesus is God, type beliefs, without disagreeing with someone. Evangelical Christians have clearly spelt out beliefs, just most people don't seem to know them. So I am basically just trying to address people who believe in the creeds, sola gratia, sola fide, and sola scriptura. I know there are individual Christians who have unorthodox ideas concerning these, I still accept them as Christians and a Protestants, but that does not mean I accept their beliefs or want to address them in this thread.

1.) There are enough unorthodox ideas spreading around these forums, I am trying to put together a thread that contains orthodox ideas and the reasoning behind them.
2.) If I allow for such a large spectrum, the number of subjects I can address will be limited without starting a debate.

I'm sorry. I'm confused. Are you saying I'm unorthodox or not Evangelical, or simply that I'm not a Calvinist?

If this thread is just for Calvinists, I'll be happy to bow out. However, I would appreciate it if you would not imply that only Calvinist beliefs are Evangelical or orthodox.

 

[Lotar]

I'm sorry. I'm confused. Are you saying I'm unorthodox or not Evangelical, or simply that I'm not a Calvinist?

If this thread is just for Calvinists, I'll be happy to bow out. However, I would appreciate it if you would not imply that only Calvinist beliefs are Evangelical or orthodox.

I don't know what you are or not? What exactly are you disagreeing with?
Did you read post #18? That is the view held by all evangelical Reformers, including Arminius. I did not even mention predestination, only that man cannot choose good without God.

This is a thread for Evangelicals, Calvinist or not. I am not pushing Calvinist beliefs because I myself am not a Calvinist.

 

[JVAC]

I'm sorry. I'm confused. Are you saying I'm unorthodox or not Evangelical, or simply that I'm not a Calvinist?

If this thread is just for Calvinists, I'll be happy to bow out. However, I would appreciate it if you would not imply that only Calvinist beliefs are Evangelical or orthodox.

It is important to note that the points of:

• Sola Scriptura
• Sola Fide
• Sola Gratia
• Sinful Nature

are esential catholic Christian doctrine. We must all believe we are saved by grace through faith, of no part of our own; "For the Bible tells me so". (all coeleced into one sentence for you)That is the stress of this thread. Granted not all churches believe that but, not all churches are true. (I might get flak for that but it had to be said). Is there a major denomination that rejects those? It certainly is not Sola Calvin! I don't know any Lutheran/Anglican/Moravian that wants to be reffered to as a "TULIP" lover.

This concept was best noted in the 'Luther Cross'. I'll include a picture.

 

[Crazy Liz]

OK. I consider myself an Evangelical. I have merely tried to state that there is a greater breadth in Evangelical thought on some of these matters than those stated by Luther, Calvin and Arminius. Not all Evangelicals hold the same view of original sin. Some (those tracing their roots to the Anabaptist tradition, for example) would prefer not to use the phrase at all because of its use by Augustine, Calvin, and others to imply inherited guilt. Some Evangelicals believe infants are mortal but innocent. However, all Evangelicals believe that all humans fall into sin if they live long enough. By the time we are able to understand what sin is, we find we are already hopelessly trapped in it. All Evangelicals do not necessarily agree on how we come to find ourselves in this state. If anyone wants to understand in more detail the differences among various Evangelical Christians about sin, that would be a matter for another thread.

 

[Lotar]

OK. I consider myself an Evangelical. I have merely tried to state that there is a greater breadth in Evangelical thought on some of these matters than those stated by Luther, Calvin and Arminius. Not all Evangelicals hold the same view of original sin. Some (those tracing their roots to the Anabaptist tradition, for example) would prefer not to use the phrase at all because of its use by Augustine, Calvin, and others to imply inherited guilt. Some Evangelicals believe infants are mortal but innocent. However, all Evangelicals believe that all humans fall into sin if they live long enough. By the time we are able to understand what sin is, we find we are already hopelessly trapped in it. All Evangelicals do not necessarily agree on how we come to find ourselves in this state. If anyone wants to understand in more detail the differences among various Evangelical Christians about sin, that would be a matter for another thread.

One thing to remember here, I don't think I made it quite clear, when I am talking about Evangelicals I do not mean evangelistic Protestants.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but originally Anabaptists were not evangelical. Now most are but some aren't. In order to be Evangelical, you must accept the creeds and the points that JVAC listed.

 

[rnmomof7]

In my time here I have seen many of the less knowledgable in the PRE have their faith ripped away by those who attack strawmen and misconseptions, that many unfortunately hold of their own faith. I have seen many leave, and only know of one who converted to the evangelical faith. This has made me very sad, and has prompted me to think of leaving. I have yet to decide if the course of this forum requires me to stay or to leave. But on to the subject at hand. I believe that the most lacking thing in this forum is clear and in depth explainations of the basics, that sadly many do not understand. So, I would politely ask that those who are not orthodox Protestants, ie Evangelical/Reformed, not to debate the contents of this thread.

Here is a beginning list of what I think are the most urgently needed:
Sola Scriptura - which is one of the most frequently attacked, and most frequenty misunderstood
Sola Gratia and Sola Fide
The sinful nature of man


I'm going to start on these today after I get back from school. I would really love it if the experts here would help me out. You know who you are

There is not as much emphasis on basic doctrinal teaching in the churches any more. As a result many christians can not articulate their doctrine or they can not recognize error when they hear it.

2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

 

[seebs]

I see what you're trying to do, and I agree that it's valuable; I just question whether calling it "the basics of the Christian faith" is the right thing to do when it's probably more clearly described as "the basics of reformed theology".

 

[JVAC]

And it continues:

2Tim 4:3 NIV

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit thier own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what thier itching ears want to hear.