What doctrines are non-negotiable?

[Cappadocious]

Yes. Some things are disputable, some things are not.

I didn't say disputable, I said disputed. At the time, those things mentioned in the Creed were disputed.

Some things are disputable, some things are not.

Actual 2nd century Christians disagree with your modern understanding of what those things are.

At that point, there was introduced the sword of the king to enforce orthodoxy in all things...according to what the king approved.

Tell that to St. Maximus.

 

[sonshine234]

What doctrines do you view add non negotiable? It doesn't have to be an exhaustive list, my post certainly isn't

Christ presence in the Holy Eucharist

 

[Albion]

I disagree, after reading the gospels many times over I'm sure he talked more about the golden rule than his death during the bulk of his teachings.

I think it was...one time.

On the other hand, he went out of his way to teach that his kingdom was not of this world and that his ministry was about the Cross. And do you remember his last instructions to the Apostles? Was it "Go and do good to all men?" No. Having read the Gospels many times over, you of course can fill in the blanks.

 

[RDKirk]

I didn't say disputable, I said disputed. At the time, those things mentioned in the Creed were disputed.

I suspect we are not in disagreement. My point is that those things that were not included in the creeds were considered disputable--at least by that council.

Actual 2nd century Christians disagree with your modern understanding of what those things are.

"What those things are" (if we're talking about indisputable things...I'm not sure we're on the same subject) for me are those included specifically in the Apostle's Creed. I may or may not agree with points of other creeds--or I may not care about them. But the Apostle's Creed for me contains the non-negotiable elements.

Tell that to St. Maximus.

I had said that "there was introduced the sword of the king to enforce orthodoxy in all things...according to what the king approved."

I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, inasmuch as Maximus was persecuted under the sword of the king.

 

[Albion]

I suspect we are not in disagreement. My point is that those things that were not included in the creeds were considered disputable--at least by that council.

Were they?

Or was it rather that they were just not on the agenda at that time?

But the Apostle's Creed for me contains the non-negotiable elements.

It contains the barest of essentials necessary for a candidate to be baptized. Whether the rest is thereby rendered "negotiable" is debatable.

 

[RDKirk]

Were they?

Or was it rather that they were just not on the agenda at that time?

Either way, it was not rendered indisputable by that council, as I said.

And then, of course, there have been numerous councils, 2nd and 3rd century, Eastern, Western, Roman Catholic, Protestant...and they had differing opinions on many things, so practically speaking, those things are, indeed, disputable because they are disputed by honorable men.

It contains the barest of essentials necessary for a candidate to be baptized. Whether the rest is thereby rendered "negotiable" is debatable.

I'm not sure many of the 1st century believers noted in the book of Acts had even that much theology down pat before they were baptized. I'm pretty sure the Philippian jailer and the Ethiopian eunuch did not have a clue about the Filioque.

But at any rate, with regard to doctrine, I'm clear in conscious to commune with someone who accepts the elements of the Apostle's Creed and hesitant to commune with someone whose beliefs do not include at least include the elements of the Apostle's Creed.

 

[Albion]

Either way, it was not rendered indisputable by that council, as I said.

Well, just a minute. I'm not sure that you can just say "either way." The difference is quite considerable and goes right to the heart of your theory.

And then, of course, there have been numerous councils, 2nd and 3rd century, Eastern, Western, Roman Catholic, Protestant...and they had differing opinions on many things, so practically speaking, those things are, indeed, disputable because they are disputed by honorable men.

Such opinions have been disputed. No one denies that. But does that mean that there are any doctrines that are negotiable or not essential? This overview of history doesn't do a thing to answer that question.

But at any rate, with regard to doctrine, I'm clear in conscious to commune with someone who accepts the elements of the Apostle's Creed and hesitant to commune with someone whose beliefs do not include at least include the elements of the Apostle's Creed.

OK. That's a view held by many Christians. It still leaves unanswered the question of whether or not there are non-essential doctrines and--more important--which ones they are.

I might add that the church has never considered the Apostles' Creed to be the definitive statement of essentials, nor did it originate as an attempt at such.

 

[RDKirk]

Such opinions have been disputed. No one denies that. But does that mean that there are any doctrines that are negotiable or not essential?

That doctrines are disputed certainly means that some doctrines are necessarily wrong...and the wrong ones are non-essential.

OK. That's a view held by many Christians. It still leaves unanswered the question of whether or not there are non-essential doctrines and--more important--which ones they are.

Right. And the disputed doctrines won't be resolved in this thread.

I might add that the church has never considered the Apostles' Creed to be the definitive statement of essentials, nor did it originate as an attempt at such.

But who disputes the elements of the Apostle's Creed?

 

[Albion]

That doctrines are disputed certainly means that some doctrines are necessarily wrong...and the wrong ones are non-essential.

That doesn't make sense. All you are saying is that there is no AGREEMENT on which doctrines are true or false, as well as essential or non-essential.

But who disputes the elements of the Apostle's Creed?

Few. I was just saying that the church itself has not made it the standard that you have chosen it to be.

 

[Cappadocious]

My point is that those things that were not included in the creeds were considered disputable--at least by that council.

Those things not included were undisputed at the time, therefore there was no need to define them by council to rule out heresy.

"What those things are" (if we're talking about indisputable things...I'm not sure we're on the same subject) for me are those included specifically in the Apostle's Creed.

We were talking about millennialism/amillennialism/premillennialism. It should also be noted that a "apostolic" date for the Apostle's Creed is not supported by mainstream scholarship. What makes you believe the surviving wording predates Nicea?

I had said that "there was introduced the sword of the king to enforce orthodoxy in all things...according to what the king approved.

And yet the orthodox often triumphed against the emperor (the post-nicene trinitarian party, St. John of Damascus, the Chalcedonian party, St. Maximus the Confessor, the Iconodules, etc.), so things were not so clear cut.

 

[sunlover1]

Obviously Christians do not all agree on every nuisance of Scripture. There are some doctrines (salvation by grace through faith and not of works Eph 2:8-9) that I see as non-negotiable.

Others (Jesus clearly taught a post-tribualtion rapture in Matthew 24) I view as important but not worth breaking fellowship over.

All Scripture is God breathed, so it's all important.

What doctrines do you view add non negotiable? It doesn't have to be an exhaustive list, my post certainly isn't

For me it would be that God created man (and woman FOR and from man)
and put him in a paradise and told him, "go live your life and glorify me!"
(God creating us for Himself)
Then the fall
then Christ is given!! and then the cross.
(God with/among us)
And then He sent His spirit (God IN us)
and now WE take HIM to the hurting world.

 

[Standing Up]

What must I do to be saved in the NT? Who do you say Christ is?

What else besides those answers are non-negotiable? Marian doctrine? Man-made definitions? Priest/sacrifice continually?

 

[Albion]

What must I do to be saved in the NT? Who do you say Christ is?

What else besides those answers are non-negotiable? Marian doctrine? Man-made definitions? Priest/sacrifice continually?

While I sympathize with the general direction you took in the first paragraph, I think there's a whole lot between that on one hand and Marian doctrines and/or priests who sacrifice on the other.

If there's to be any kind of answer to this question, it'll have to take account of the doctrines that actually have divided the church into so many denominations.

 

[Standing Up]

While I sympathize with the general direction you took in the first paragraph, I think there's a whole lot between that on one hand and Marian doctrines and/or priests who sacrifice on the other.

If there's to be any kind of answer to this question, it'll have to take account of the doctrines that actually have divided the church into so many denominations.

Hmmmm,

Don't the divisions actually tie to the Nicene Creed?

Creed---the original or the revised one? That is to say, who's in charge, the bible, councils, popes?

Born of the virgin---is that inclusive or not of pre, during, and post?

Filioque, from the Father and/or Son?

Died and buried and rose the third day----which days were those?

Baptism---water, Spirit, both, infant?

IOW, the Creed didn't accomplish its task of unity at all.

So, what must I do/believe to be saved? That'd be the essential doctrine vertical.

The creeds simply chop up the horizontal (ironically some do think there was no cross, but only the "picket"), amongst Christians (which is still the question---what is a Christian, the essential element(s)?).

 

[Albion]

Hmmmm,

Don't the divisions actually tie to the Nicene Creed?.

Creed---the original or the revised one? That is to say, who's in charge, the bible, councils, popes?

Born of the virgin---is that inclusive or not of pre, during, and post?

Filioque, from the Father and/or Son?

Died and buried and rose the third day----which days were those?

Baptism---water, Spirit, both, infant?

IOW, the Creed didn't accomplish its task of unity at all.

I'm not sure of that. It apparently did accomplish its task but then many of these issues were reopened in later times.

So, what must I do/believe to be saved? That'd be the essential doctrine vertical.

Why would that be the only essential? It's the most critical issue, yes, but the only one that is essential??

 

[Rev Randy]

Obviously Christians do not all agree on every nuisance of Scripture. There are some doctrines (salvation by grace through faith and not of works Eph 2:8-9) that I see as non-negotiable.

Others (Jesus clearly taught a post-tribualtion rapture in Matthew 24) I view as important but not worth breaking fellowship over.

All Scripture is God breathed, so it's all important.

What doctrines do you view add non negotiable? It doesn't have to be an exhaustive list, my post certainly isn't

The Dogmas.

 

[sunlover1]

I misread the op and posted what I think are important things to know

As far as "essentials" to be considered a Christian?
Rebirth.
What else is there?
Baptism?
One can be a child of God without it.
The only thing one MUST need to be a Christian,
is GOD in them.
imo

The Dogmas.

Which is/are?

 

[Rev Randy]

I misread the op and posted what I think are important things to know

As far as "essentials" to be considered a Christian?
Rebirth.
What else is there?
Baptism?
One can be a child of God without it.
The only thing one MUST need to be a Christian,
is GOD in them.
imo


Which is/are?

Depends on where you Commune I suppose. My point was our Dogmas are our essentials.
Notice I did not jump on your Baptism statement. I'm being nice today.
(pats self on back for keeping his mouth shut knowing how far off topic that would go)

 

[sunlover1]

The Dogmas.

Depends on where you Commune I suppose.

Oh, lol

My point was our Dogmas are our essentials.

gotcha

Notice I did not jump on your Baptism statement. I'm being nice today.
(pats self on back for keeping his mouth shut knowing how far off topic that would go)

Being nice he says

you soooo lie

 

[Standing Up]

I'm not sure of that. It apparently did accomplish its task but then many of these issues were reopened in later times.


Why would that be the only essential? It's the most critical issue, yes, but the only one that is essential??

The early creeds are so vague though. Born of the virgin for example. Okay, we all agree she was a virgin prior to conception and gave birth. After? Folks disagree. There's only one group (RC), however, that made it an essential doctrine to their salvation. So, really don't think the creeds did anything more than separate brothers.

But that's the question. What makes us brothers? What is essential?

Born again? Okay. By water or Spirit or what?

Love? Okay, lots of religions try that.

Saved by grace through faith. Does any other religion teach "no works" to get and stay "saved" besides Christianity?