What doctrines are non-negotiable?

[Rev Randy]

We got that. There's the horizontal; you're in communion with other like-minded ones. Just like RCers are. Just like Anglicans are. Just like SDAers are. Just like JWs are. Just like the Boy Scouts are.

There's also the vertical. You don't know what you (your community) must do to be saved. No problem by me.

So now you change the question?
Let's examine what I could say but be wrong. But let's first agree that "essential" means will not work without. No exceptions.
1. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, have I not just damned all babies and those not possessing the mental facilities to believe? Looks like we need a special dispensation here.
2. Be baptized. Whoops, that man on the cross next to Jesus was just damned along with many others.
3. Profess Christ before man. Joe has fallen off the seventeenth story roof and is hanging on but just about to lose his grip. He cries out to Jesus, not to save his mortal life but to save his soul. Too bad Joe. No soup for you.
4.Confess with your mouth. We sure don't want them old mutes in heaven now do we?
5.Keep My Commandments. Do I even need to go there?
6. Pray the sinner's prayer. Again we leave out those unable.
Now if you ask me the path to salvation, I'll give you an answer. But I was asked about absolute essentials for the salvation of mankind. There is but one absolute concerning salvation. That absolute is Christ. Not our doings or beliefs. Salvation belongs to our Lord. It is His to offer to whom He wills regardless of their shortcomings.

I am not about telling Jesus who he may and who he may not grant salvation, nor will I give him my list of essential rules.That was tried already and it failed. Some guys called the Pharisees were masters of closing the door.
Did I sayyet? If not, .

 

[Standing Up]

So now you change the question?
Let's examine what I could say but be wrong. But let's first agree that "essential" means will not work without. No exceptions.
1. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, have I not just damned all babies and those not possessing the mental facilities to believe? Looks like we need a special dispensation here.
2. Be baptized. Whoops, that man on the cross next to Jesus was just damned along with many others.
3. Profess Christ before man. Joe has fallen off the seventeenth story roof and is hanging on but just about to lose his grip. He cries out to Jesus, not to save his mortal life but to save his soul. Too bad Joe. No soup for you.
4.Confess with your mouth. We sure don't want them old mutes in heaven now do we?
5.Keep My Commandments. Do I even need to go there?
6. Pray the sinner's prayer. Again we leave out those unable.
Now if you ask me the path to salvation, I'll give you an answer. But I was asked about absolute essentials for the salvation of mankind. There is but one absolute concerning salvation. That absolute is Christ. Not our doings or beliefs. Salvation belongs to our Lord. It is His to offer to whom He wills regardless of their shortcomings.

I am not about telling Jesus who he may and who he may not grant salvation, nor will I give him my list of essential rules.That was tried already and it failed. Some guys called the Pharisees were masters of closing the door.
Did I sayyet? If not, .

I like universalism too, but let's try something else first before going that route.

Rom. 10:11 (kjv) For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Is. 28:16 (sept) 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord, [even] the Lord, Behold, I lay for the foundations of Sion a costly stone, a choice, a corner-stone, a precious [stone], for its foundations; and he that believes [on him] shall by no means be ashamed.

Who is he?

 

[Standing Up]

I can "see" that it represents the arms of a cross. I can't agree that the explanation helps us with the question before us, though.

Why not? Do you think RC has to do XYZ, while EO has to do ABC, while Anglican has to do LMN, and Baptists have to do EFG?

Don't you think God is Father of us all who believe on Him or is it true that other groups have to do additional things in order to call Him Abba, Father?

 

[ebia]

Either the Marian dogmas of RC are salvific or not. They think they are. If they are, then we're not just not in communion with them, but not saved; we are destined for hell. Or, if we Christians who do not submit to Rome, do not subscribe to Unam Sanctum, then we are condemned.

Except, of course, that RC theology doesn't say that.

 

[Standing Up]

Except, of course, that RC theology doesn't say that.

C'mon Ebia, you've been around a long time on these issues.

For centuries, Unam Sanctum stood as written. Yes, Vat II has tried to melt the ice of pride, but we know there are RCers who reject Vat II in order to embrace all the pre-Vat II dogmas that Vat II tried to change.

Even an RCer quoted their own catechism about the obligation to attend Mass, or else.

Marian dogmas are de fide. Thanks, however, for challenging this and thus finding:

" 166) Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity. (De fide on the ground of the general promulgation of doctrine.) Christ was born from the side of Mary, much like Eve was made from the Side of Adam. "
A Summary of the Dogmas and Teachings of the Church

Long have I said this, now we have an RCer who agrees that was the teaching -=-- either unnaturally from the side of Mary (east gate) or born normally like you and I. 'Nuff said.

 

[Albion]

Why not? Do you think RC has to do XYZ, while EO has to do ABC, while Anglican has to do LMN, and Baptists have to do EFG?

Don't you think God is Father of us all who believe on Him or is it true that other groups have to do additional things in order to call Him Abba, Father?

I just don't see any point to the effort to sort and diagram religious beliefs in that way. What's essential is essential and what's non-essential is non-essential. The challenge is nothing more than deciding which doctrines fall into which category.

 

[Rev Randy]

I like universalism too, but let's try something else first before going that route.

Rom. 10:11 (kjv) For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Is. 28:16 (sept) 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord, [even] the Lord, Behold, I lay for the foundations of Sion a costly stone, a choice, a corner-stone, a precious [stone], for its foundations; and he that believes [on him] shall by no means be ashamed.

Who is he?

Do you know what universalism really is? It is not refusing to condemn what you are only speculating. It's saying there are many paths. I presented only one. Christ Jesus. What I did not answer was who is damned. It's not about :unless you do this and that. it's about what Christ has done and does.
I am not of the school that I'm saved because of something I've done or because of my beliefs on certain scripture. I believe I entered into salvation because of what was done to me by God and because of God Jesus Christ.
Now the OP asks what Doctrines are non-negotiable? I answered that question and I'll answer it again. For me: The dogmatic teachings of the Church. (The Eastern Orthodox Church) Yep non-negotiable for me. What is essential for Salvation? Jesus Christ alone. Yes Regis, that's my final answer.

 

[Rev Randy]

I just don't see any point to the effort to sort and diagram religious beliefs in that way. What's essential is essential and what's non-essential is non-essential. The challenge is nothing more than deciding which doctrines fall into which category.

The OP did not ask about essentials. The question was about what doctrines are non-negotiable. Our respective Communions tell us the answer to that. well most do.
Somewhere along the line the question changed to what doctrines are essential for salvation.
Before we got sidetracked I answered Dogma as by definition dogma or dogmatic teachings are just that (non-negotiable) So Standing Up has a very valid point. The RCC has dogma only they hold. The EO has dogmatic teachings unique to them. Anglican as well depending on the style and yes even Baptist(also depending on the style) have differing dogmas although it's not the term they usually use.
So his point is very valid and I even agree that there should not be a different set for different groups. But the reality is, we are divided by Dogma as well as smaller matters.
If the challenge is to come to agreement on "non-negotiables, it won't be decided and fixed here. If it's just to list them, I'll bow out as that cannot go in a fruitful direction. I once asked anyone from the RCC to explain why one of their Dogmas was actually a Dogma. I did not receive an answer but it began something ugly. So I retracted my question and asked for any who would to PM me and explain it as I didn't want to debate it but simply understand why. Seems it was so non-negotiable that it couldn't be spoken as I have as of yet heard a peep. I respect the silence and can live without the answer.
Some think all dogma or dogmatic teaching is unto salvation. Well only kinda. Disputing them means excommunication until you get your head right. So if one sees the Eucharist as effectual toward salvation, I guess they are salvic in nature. But I would not say a non-Orthodox not holding to Orthodox dogmatic teaching is automatically booted into a fiery pit. But they wouldn't be in communion with us. Just as I cannot in good conscience be of the RCC because of a certain Dogma therefore I could not commune with them even if allowed by the Orthodox Church. It's the very reason the Schism has not been resolved. It's non-negotiable.
Yes, Standing up is right on the money with the ABC ,XYZ thing. Not so sure about the vertical cross thing but he hit home with that. He just pointed at that giant pimple we love to pretend is not there. He gets reps from me.

 

[ebia]

C'mon Ebia, you've been around a long time on these issues.

For centuries, Unam Sanctum stood as written. Yes, Vat II has tried to melt the ice of pride, but we know there are RCers who reject Vat II in order to embrace all the pre-Vat II dogmas that Vat II tried to change.

And catholic theology isn't defined by your, mine, or any other random person on the internet's interpretation of history.

Even an RCer quoted their own catechism about the obligation to attend Mass, or else.

Marian dogmas are de fide. Thanks, however, for challenging this and thus finding:

" 166) Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity. (De fide on the ground of the general promulgation of doctrine.) Christ was born from the side of Mary, much like Eve was made from the Side of Adam. "
A Summary of the Dogmas and Teachings of the Church

Long have I said this, now we have an RCer who agrees that was the teaching -=-- either unnaturally from the side of Mary (east gate) or born normally like you and I. 'Nuff said.

The Marian dogmas are dogmas - supposed infallible teachings of the church that Catholics are required to assent to, at least in theory and allowing that they can be interpreted. However, the RCC doesn't definitively say who is not saved, if anyone.

Apologists (often on both sides) and internet police like nice clear, black and white answers to every question, but Catholic theology allows for massively more ambiguity and room for opinion than that. A good number of very influential Catholic theologians and leaders hold that we can't know who is not saved, or even if anyone is not saved.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip- A good number of very influential Catholic theologians and leaders hold that we can't know who is not saved, or even if anyone is not saved.

So, their answer to the OP is, who knows, not us.

 

[Standing Up]

Do you know what universalism really is? It is not refusing to condemn what you are only speculating. It's saying there are many paths. I presented only one. Christ Jesus. What I did not answer was who is damned. It's not about :unless you do this and that. it's about what Christ has done and does.
I am not of the school that I'm saved because of something I've done or because of my beliefs on certain scripture. I believe I entered into salvation because of what was done to me by God and because of God Jesus Christ.
Now the OP asks what Doctrines are non-negotiable? I answered that question and I'll answer it again. For me: The dogmatic teachings of the Church. (The Eastern Orthodox Church) Yep non-negotiable for me. What is essential for Salvation? Jesus Christ alone. Yes Regis, that's my final answer.

Thanks for explaining your position again. No doubt many would say roughly the same thing. We agree on the vertical (brothers of the same faith), but not the horizontal (strangers to the same faith).

 

[Standing Up]

The OP did not ask about essentials. The question was about what doctrines are non-negotiable. Our respective Communions tell us the answer to that. well most do.
Somewhere along the line the question changed to what doctrines are essential for salvation.-snip-

And the answer is now fairly clear. There are non-negotiable doctrines in order to be in communion with your group. The horizontal. They aren't necessarily salvific, though some may think they are both for those in the group and for those still outside the group.

Where does one go who is not in communion with one's group? The answer to that may reveal what's really being said. Purgatory? Hell? Heaven?

If we answer heaven, regardless of your group affiliation, because of Christ, it simply begs the question, what have we done ...

I'd assume the OP was asking for the non-negotiables as regards salvation, not group affiliation, btw.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

One point i find really important is that love is given priority to other concepts of scripture in scripture . another point is that there is a hierarchy of truth in the scriuptures . it helps prioritize which is the greater commandment when it seems .. two or more appear to be speaking to a situation .

 

[Rev Randy]

And the answer is now fairly clear. There are non-negotiable doctrines in order to be in communion with your group. The horizontal. They aren't necessarily salvific, though some may think they are both for those in the group and for those still outside the group.

Where does one go who is not in communion with one's group? The answer to that may reveal what's really being said. Purgatory? Hell? Heaven?

If we answer heaven, regardless of your group affiliation, because of Christ, it simply begs the question, what have we done ...

I'd assume the OP was asking for the non-negotiables as regards salvation, not group affiliation, btw.

You're most likely correct on the intentions of the OP. But knowing how some of us are, some can really only answer by their Church as that's how some of us are taught. It's not that I'm not allowed personal thought nor disallowed to seek out my conscience (I actually express that more than I should). It's that I am not allowed on matters found dogmatic. That is if I'm not going to be rebellious.
BTW, Thank you for pointing out that pimple we love to ignore. We often ignore it desiring peace in our conversation but we need to be reminded from time to time. While I'm not a man of worry, I due grieve over it in my heart. I pray about it daily. I just quit looking for the solution to come of men. A cop out? Perhaps but more out of it making me weary and stealing my joy.

 

[Rev Randy]

Thanks for explaining your position again. No doubt many would say roughly the same thing. We agree on the vertical (brothers of the same faith), but not the horizontal (strangers to the same faith).

fair enough. I agree(that we agree on the former and disagree on the latter).
At least we are halfway there.

 

[Rev Randy]

So, their answer to the OP is, who knows, not us.

Close. It's God knows not us.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Obviously Christians do not all agree on every nuance 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

Technically speaking no doctrines are negotiable if you really do believe them.

For a mature faith there is a hierarchy of truth with some truths being of greater importance and some of lesser importance.

When seeking fellowship with christians from a different tradition it would be a mistake to seek fellowship by negotiating doctrines (if you really believe them).

When seeking fellowship with christians from a different tradition one ought to pause and consider where the points of disagreement reside in the hierarchy of truth that applies in your tradition.

Having briefly stated the basis for discussions it follows that some doctrines (where there are differences) must be weighed in the balance and one must decide if fellowship is higher in the hierarchy of truth than is the doctrine that is disputed.

 

[Rev Randy]

Technically speaking no doctrines are negotiable if you really do believe them.

For a mature faith there is a hierarchy of truth with some truths being of greater importance and some of lesser importance.

When seeking fellowship with christians from a different tradition it would be a mistake to seek fellowship by negotiating doctrines (if you really believe them).

When seeking fellowship with christians from a different tradition one ought to pause and consider where the points of disagreement reside in the hierarchy of truth that applies in your tradition.

Having briefly stated the basis for discussions it follows that some doctrines (where there are differences) must be weighed in the balance and one must decide if fellowship is higher in the hierarchy of truth than is the doctrine that is disputed.

That's good advice. That hit me square in the face when I was posting recently. I decided my desire to know was not worth the loss of fellowship. It wasn't that I wanted to question it but understand it (not believe it). I remembered that in public is not always the best place to learn. I found the answer this morning. I asked a Catholic priest. He got me to answer my own question by asking me a similar question about a Dogmatic teaching of my faith. I felt kinda silly as I had the answer to my question all the time. The answer was this: "It has been decided and there is no dispute among us about it"

 

[Albion]

That's good advice. That hit me square in the face when I was posting recently. I decided my desire to know was not worth the loss of fellowship. It wasn't that I wanted to question it but understand it (not believe it). I remembered that in public is not always the best place to learn. I found the answer this morning. I asked a Catholic priest. He got me to answer my own question by asking me a similar question about a Dogmatic teaching of my faith. I felt kinda silly as I had the answer to my question all the time. The answer was this: "It has been decided and there is no dispute among us about it"

How depressing to read anything in praise of "check your brain at the church door." It also makes no sense to me, considering that you had to use it in order to decide which church is the right one for you, didn't you?

 

[Standing Up]

One point i find really important is that love is given priority to other concepts of scripture in scripture . another point is that there is a hierarchy of truth in the scriuptures . it helps prioritize which is the greater commandment when it seems .. two or more appear to be speaking to a situation .

Yes, there's a sense of major and minor truths. Hence the OP.

There's also a sense of, as believers, we're the children of God. So, the question is still, what must I do to become a child of God? What must I do/believe? What is non-negotiable there? Seeing each other as brothers/sisters in the Lord is probably more a matter of maturity than anything else. Remember the I am of Apollos, of Paul, of Cephas, of Christ? carnal stuff Paul said.