What are the essentials to Christianity? Four Criteria

The problem with distinguishing items 1 and 2 is that 1 represents what was disputed, thus discussed. If something was not disputed then it may be perceived as non-essential when in fact it is essential.

Take for example God is eternal, or God is creator, or God is to be worshipped. These are central, but have they been confessed as central? They may not fit item 2 yet perhaps they should be included in the core.

I would say that Jesus rose literally from the dead is core.

But as I have mentioned to you before, I think your focus is slightly off the mark as you are thinking in terms of definition, rather than in terms of trajectory. A trajectoral approach would see some people with core beliefs out of the kingdom and some that lack them in the kingdom. It is the direction one’s belief is going, ie, toward or away from Jesus.

I like these criteria, but, how does Trinity fit here?

I would say Trinity is a very essential doctrine, however it seems that only the first three criteria can be rightly applied.

The idea that God is one is no doubt made essential in the OT, but even though I think it is quite clear in the NT there doesn’t seem to really be an explicit “God is triune, it’s important to believe that’ sort of passage.

Perhaps it’s just a matter of combining things that are said to be important?

How do you define the Church?

I define the Church (big C) as the world wide body of believers. The church (little c) is the human institution. Their memberships overlap but are not identical.

Today, we have denominational office holders such as Katharine Jefferts Schori, Bishop of the Episcopal Church, denying foundational doctrine.

How does this fit into your criteria?

bethyada-

in the “trajectoral approach,” where is Jesus? how do you assess the heading toward or away from him?

some good points are being raised though in 1 and 2. Perhaps this is an any three of the four criteria system?

I’d define the Church as the body of believers worldwide and throughout history who have adhered to the central tenets of Christianity.

The incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth would be one of those central tenets. I suspect that the virgin birth, ie the miraculous conception of Jesus would be a part of it. Jesus’ identity is entwined with his relationship with God the Father, being without that would weaken his claims.

I like Luther’s definition:

“Where the gospel is proclaimed in it’s purity, and where the Sacaraments are administerd in accordance with that gospel, there is the church.”

Yes, but then the question becomes, what are the essentials to the Gospel? That is what this post is about.

The gospel is the forgiveness of sins for Jesus’ sake. That IS the gospel.
And that happens in the hearing of the Word and in the receiving of the Sacraments.

Who do you say that Jesus is? Arius could have said the same thing you just said, yet he denied the eternality of Christ.

Jesus is the One who was raised from the dead by the Father.

Arius was a bonehead.

Christ was fully man and fully God.

Michael: ‘This is why it is of vital importance that Christians not only be good exegetes, but also good historians.’

Really? How good as historians should they be? Are you saying that one cannot discern the essentials from scripture alone? First century folks didn’t have any church history to consult. Please clarify.

[By the way, ‘criterion’ is singular, ‘criteria’ is only plural; English follows Greek usage.]

Ryan,

History is used to test our faith. It is secondary to the Scripture, but it is nontheless valid. If we were to discount the history of our faith, we would be discounting the Holy Spirit’s witness for 2000 years. This is the problem of the cults. They believe that they can find the faith outside of the body of Christ, living and dead. The great Protestant Reformers sought to ground their faith in the Scriptures and history.

I appreciate this article, though I would define the criteria a little differently. I’ve recently written similar “salvation requirements” for a discipleship class I’m leading, so I’d appreciate your feedback. I concluded the req’ts would have the following characteristics:

1. Is salvation automatically applied to everyone? If not, then the salvation req’ts are UNIQUELY SPECIFIC (definable – not abstract).

2. Have these req’ts changed since the time of Christ? If not, then they are HISTORICALLY TIMELESS (applied the same today as in the early church).

3. Are these req’ts different for different people? If not, then they are CULTURALLY BOUNDLESS (applied the same to all people at any location).

4. Are these req’ts different based on each person’s physical capability? If not, then they are HUMANLY ACCESSIBLE (applied the same way to all people regardless of any physical handicap that doesn’t impede their ability to understand the gospel).

With these criteria, the salvation req’ts should equally apply to a 21st century healthy American, a 12th century deaf & mute African, or even the penitent thief on the cross.

As controversial as it may seem, I believe this would exclude long-held evangelical beliefs like the infallibility and inerrancy of scripture or the doctrine of the trinity. These beliefs would at least fail the 2nd characteristic since they were not a part of the gospel message preached throughout Acts.

Therefore, how can we hold someone today to a different standard of “salvation requirements” than what was simplistically expressed by the thief on the cross who…
1) recognized his own sinfulness (his need for salvation),
2) recognized Jesus’ sinlessness (Christ’s ability to save us),
3) called Jesus “Lord” & acknowledged His kingdom (Christ’s deity),
4) requested Jesus for salvation (appealing to Christ’s willingness to save us)
5) acted on faith alone (he performed no works, but merely made a confession to Christ)

j bethyada-in the “trajectoral approach,” where is Jesus? how do you assess the heading toward or away from him?

It would be better to ask who is Jesus. And we don’t assess others, Jesus assesses us.

These are questions followers of Jesus say yes to:

Do you love Jesus? Are you wanting to be like him? Are you wanting to and trying to obey him?

Michael,
I appreciate your concern about cults and it’s a genuine problem, but I don’t think you’ve answered the question. You seem to say that someone who has scripture but does not have history cannot know what doctrines are essential. But church history and doctrinal history have taken many paths in 2000 years, so the question of essential doctrines is in part relevant to specific traditions. If one needs history to ‘test the faith,’ then it means that while scripture is necessary it isn’t sufficient. Sola scriptura is weakened. And this is in the context of what you maintain (I believe) that correct doctrine is a necessary foundation for belief unto salvation.

I appreciate the idea within these criteria, but I think they do not account for humanity’s failings well enough. I think there are plenty of beliefs that could be called “essentials” that were believed at one point and then fell out of belief as they became politically or theologically unattractive.

Take, for example, the core belief that “Jesus was, first and foremost, the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham to the descendants of Abraham.”

That belief was extremely important to the early church, was part of the earlier kerygma, and is described a staggering number of times throughout the New Testament [when writing to both Jewsh and Gentile believers]. However, that description of Jesus fell out of its emphasis during an anti-Jewish backlash and never really regained its position. Now the church tends to preach that Jesus is the fulfillment of the curse on the serpent in Genesis 3:15 [convenient, theologically, for those who believe “salvation” is about the Final Judgment…as it provides a way for those before Abraham to have belief in a gospel of sorts.]

But no Gospel writer even mentions this curse anywhere with regard to Jesus. In all the evangelism shown in Acts, nothing like this can be found at all. It is politically and theologically convenient to present Jesus in this way, but it is alien to the message of the Bible.

Since “Core beliefs” should logically be seen in all integrated presentations of the gospel, I would say that anything at the core of Christianity should be “Clearly described in both the Synoptic gospels and John and clearly seen in the evangelism of Acts.” The gospel accounts were meant to share Christianity and defend its core beliefs. Acts is _the_ place to look for a description of what Peter, Paul, etc. thought made a Christian a Christian…there are about 20 accounts of teachings given there [I’ve categorized them here: http://www.authentic-christianity.net/2008/09/what-is-christian.html%5D

Taking that as the criteria, I would say the core of Christianity is very, very light:
i) Jesus is proof that the God of the Israel is the living God who through Jesus fulfills the promises made to Abraham and David.
ii) Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, as proven by His resurrection.
iii) God has exalted Jesus to Lord over heaven and earth.
iv) Jesus will return to claim His Kingdom and raise the dead with transformed bodies [completing the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham which has already been partially shown in Christ’s exaltation and our receipt of the Spirit.]
v) Jesus will Judge the living and the dead on the last day, so all should repent of unrighteousness and follow Jesus’ commands.

It is notable that the abstract Christology and atonement doctrines that are considered so important today are not to be found in the early church. [100 AD – 250 AD]

David,

“I think there are plenty of beliefs that could be called “essentials” that were believed at one point and then fell out of belief as they became politically or theologically unattractive.”

Then they would not have passed #1.

To Matt,

I like your four points and will use them, if that’s OK. As I see it, what you’re saying is that the standards of salvation cannot change, regardless of time or specific situations. I certainly agree. that’s why I lean on the early creeds, thinking that the essentials would have been settled pretty early.

I use a different reference than the thief on the cross I use the tax collector in Luke 18. Three points:
1) He recognized God
2) He recognized his own sinfulness
3) He asked for mercy

And he went home justified. And this, I believe, is the essence of salvation, equally applicable even for Old Testament folks. (I don’t buy the “looking ahead to Christ” idea. It seems forced) However, all come to God through Christ. Forgiveness is found only at the cross, even for those who lived prior to it. There is no other name by which we can be saved.

But I think CMP’s point is not salvation, but that orthodoxy evolves. As I understand it, he’s trying to establish an evangelical orthodoxy. That would allow for David’s point – beliefs that once seemed essential have fallen by the wayside as orthodoxy shifted in response to situations the church has faced through the centuries.

CMP,
I’d like to ask one point for clarification. Maybe I missed it, but when you use the word “Essential” do you mean “essential for salvation” or “essential for Orthodoxy”, because these two would likely result in very different lists. For instance I would consider the Penal Substitution to be part of Orthodoxy, or at the very least Evangelical Orthodoxy. Despite this I wouldn’t consider it necessary for salvation given that the entire Church prior to Anselm believed something quite different about the nature of the atonement. I’m not about to go with those who would say that no Christian’s existed prior to Anselm, or more likely Calvin since he fully articulated it.

Then again this leads me to wonder if even Penal Substitution would meet the first criteria of your list since it has not been universally accepted and isn’t even today. The Eastern Orthodox still hold to something resembling the Ransom or Christus Victor view, and in addition there is the Moral Government, and Exemplary views floating around. Ultimately if we follow your criteria won’t we likely end up with something resembling Paleo-Orthodoxy to define the essentials? (not that this is a bad thing)

This list is better stated as that which is cardinal to Christianity. It has to with those central elements of the faith that make or break what it means to be Christian.

Orthodoxy is a little too broad and salvation is a little too narrow. In essence, it is an attempt to discover the “regula fide” or the “canon varitas.”

That probably did not clear it up. I need to think of a better way to communicate this particular nuace.

Michael,
My point is that there are items that _should_ be considered essential but do not pass your number 1 because of the course of the church’s theology.

Here are some examples of items that were highly relevant in the early church and are given primary importance in the NT but have fallen out of centrality [or have had their verity blurred] through the theological and political changes of the church. I would say all of these are essential, but none would pass both criteria 1 and 2:

i) Seeing Christ as primarily the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham and David [with and understanding of what those promises meant.]

ii) The actual Messiaship of Christ [the church has moved away from seeing Jesus as the Christ and more toward Jesus as God or Jesus as atoning sacrifice.]

iii) Jesus’ Resurrection as proof of the bodily resurrection of all.

iv) Jesus as judge of living and dead [various atonement theologies have blurred this…because most modern atonement theologies rely on the Father being the Judge, whereas the NT is quite adamant that Christ has that post and not the Father.]

v) The resurrection of Christ as proof that the God of the Old Testament, the God of Jacob, is the [one and only] Living God.

vi) Christ’s judgment is based on our thoughts, deeds, and words. [This was obviously a major component of early Christianity, but has either been rejected, reinterpreted, or rationalized by most Christians so as not to cause friction with “salvation by faith alone.”]

“vi) Christ’s judgment is based on our thoughts, deeds, and words.”

Hardly.

That sounds like a pretty wimpy god to me.

He calls the shots, when it comes to our salvation.

Revisit Jesus’ conversation with Niccodemus for well needed remediation.

But Steve, one does have to take into consideration such Scriptures as the parable of the sheep and the goats and the reason Jesus gave for where each group ended up. I agree with David that such Scriptures have been neglected and that they haven’t received the attention they need. It seems to me that a complete theology has to deal with Scriputures such as those and put them in their proper place. Yes, or course we must be born again as Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus makes very clear. That is the stariting point of our life with God. But that being born again must work itself out in practical life, and if it doesn’t, there is a major problem!! Remember James and his very blunt statement that, “faith without works is dead”?

But Steve, one does have to take into consideration such Scriptures as the parable of the sheep and the goats and the reason Jesus gave for where each group ended up.

I think an argument can be made that, Matthew being a Jewish gospel and the word for “nations” also meaning “gentiles”, the parable of the sheep and the goats has its explanation in Joel 3 (Joel 4 in the Hebrew, I believe). I.e., it’s where/when God judges the non-believing nations for how they treated his people (which in this parable could mean the Jewish people or the Christians – after all, Jesus calls the persecuted ones “My brethren”). Thus, it’s possible that this parable has been misinterpreted as a day of judgment that Christians will have to face.

I’m not rejecting the importance of our works, just questioning the idea that the parable/judgment of the sheep and the goats is something Christians are to fear – i.e., whether they will be found to be a sheep or a goat when Jesus comes to reign.

We are not saved by anything we do, say, feel or think.

We are saved solely on the basis of God calling us and choosing us.

They asked Him, “What is it to do the work of the Father?”

And He said, “believe in the One who the Father has sent”.

WE DO…not in order to be saved, but as a result of being saved. In that group of gaots were many who said Lord, Lord, we did this and that in your name.

“We are saved by grace through faith (St. Paul tells us in Ephesians 2) not of works lest anyone should boast.”

And the faith that we are saved through is a gift of God. St. Paul tells us that also.

Doing works is great and we ought do them, but they account for nothing towards our salvation…otherwise that cross would have been in vain and He could have jsut lined us up and compared us to each other.

While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

That is what I am hanging my hat on.

Thanks!

Not arguing your points! All I am saying is that if we are truly saved, the good works will follow. Remember too that Jesus said in Mt. 12:36-37 that our words would justify or condemn us in the day of judgment. His words have to have some practical meaning for today, don’t you think? There are other places too that remind us of the necessity of “putting on” that new nature that we received when we were born again. (Ephesians and Colossians).

Have to leave for awhile…

The trouble comes when we try and check off those good works. Almost always we are checking them off for others.

Someone may be in church twice on Sunday, be on the church council, work at the homeless shelter and visit the sick and dying in nursing homes every night of the week (sounds pretty impressive doesn’t it?)

Lots of good works. But we cannot know their heart. They may be doing all of this to impress me or you, or themselves, or God, and there motives are completely shot to hell.

Then, you may have a drug addict, laying in the gutter, hasn’t been to church in years, and he may totally be one of God’s adopted children.

This is why Jesus told us not to judge. The wheat and the tares grow together and we cannot tell them apart no matter how much you think you can.

‘their’…Oops.

@bethyada – on the trajectoral approach

These are good questions to ask ourselves and good points

It would be better to ask who is Jesus. And we don’t assess others, Jesus assesses us.

Do you love Jesus? Are you wanting to be like him? Are you wanting to and trying to obey him?

But if I read these right, you’re basically questioning CMP’s premise that a doctrinal basis has any place in defining the church and its essential beliefs, and that we should be concerned with assessing the standing of anyone who claims to be a believer.

As such, the trajectoral approach seems either irrelevant to CMP’s question, or it seems to declare CMP’s question irrelevant.

granted, you already said you think CMP is slightly off the mark, but you did also mention core beliefs. These questions seem to address attitude.

Steve,
The vast majority of the works where the actual Judgment (rather than the use of the term “salvation” or “saved”) is described do so in terms of exactly what I said… and you say I need remediation???

“By your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

“They show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, as their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend them, on the day God will judge the secrets of human hearts, according to my gospel, through Christ Jesus.”

“For we all must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be paid back according to what he has done while in the body, whether good or evil.”

“A day is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and will come out — the ones how have done what is good to the resurrection resulting in life, and the ones who have done what is evil to the resurrection resulting in condemnation.”

“So the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to their deeds.”

I could list a dozen more easily…in fact I could nearly list a dozen from Matthew’s gospel alone spoken directly from Jesus, who is the One doing the judging… If Jesus says the basis is going to be our words, thoughts, and deeds, why are you so quick to deny it?

EricW

Claiming that the sheep and the goats is not a reference to the final Judgment of everyone by Christ is pretty strained:
i) We are told that Jesus is the only dictating the sentence and verdict [not God, who is described as the one meting wrath out upon the nations prior to the Final Judgment]
ii) The finale 25:46 makes it clear this is the final Judgment.
iii) The discussion in 25:34-40 is hardly a description of God’s legitimizing punishment on the nations that mistreated Israel.

To Dave Z (and anyone else bored enough to eavesdrop) 🙂

Interesting point about the Tax Collector example. I agree it’s a good one, but my only hesitation in that example is that 1) Jesus told the story which could be interpreted as a parable or hypothetical example (it may have been based on a real example, but that’s not explicit in his description), and 2) it occurred before his death – the act of atonement.

For these reasons, it would be difficult to argue against someone who challenges the validity of that example. To me, I favor the penitent thief since 1) it’s clearly a real event (not to be confused as a parable), and 2) the thief’s death and eternal “salvation” occurred after Jesus’ death (act of atoning for the thief’s sins).

I would normally agree with you about CMP’s criteria arguing for evangelical orthodoxy, but his post #20 shows that wasn’t his intent. To me, if “orthodoxy” means “right belief”, then it seems to imply what’s essential – and what’s more essential to Christianity than salvation? Can a Christian be unorthodox? Or can a non-Christian be orthodox? The term “Orthodox” seems a bit vague and impotent to me; it implies that anything apart from it is “wrong belief” as if someone is not a Christian because they aren’t “orthodox”. But if we define it apart from salvation, then it opens the door wide for abuse and misinterpretation.

It seems to me that when we say some belief is “orthodox”, we’re not implying it’s “right belief”, but that it’s really “accepted belief”; but to say a belief is “unorthodox” also implies that it’s non-Christian, or someone believing it is not adhering to a salvation essential. That just seems wrong to me. Perhaps a better word is to call it PARADOX as defined as “A statement or proposition which on the face of it seems self-contradictory, absurd, or at variance with common sense; though, on investigation or when explained, it may prove to be well-founded.” For example, if a Christian believes all the essentials for salvation but doesn’t believe the Bible is absolute truth, that may not conform to the “accepted belief” of the church; however, it’s a PARADOX because despite it’s seeming contradiction and challenge to what’s an accepted belief, it could be easily argued to be true because belief in the Bible is not demonstrated biblically as an essential for salvation.

Is there another term other than “orthodox” that we can use that means “accepted belief” so as not to alienate a true Christian who believes all the essentials, but may not conform to some of the accepted non-essentials?

David Rudel,

Do you really want to stand before the Living God and rely on what you have done and said, or what you have not done and said, towards your salvation?

Honestly, do you think that highly of yourself?

This won’t take but a few minutes:

Steve,
What kind of an answer is that? Theology is not based on what I want or you want. It is based on what the Bible says [well…at least it should be.] Christ, Paul, Peter, the writer of Hebrews, James and John all describe the Judgment directly in the same way. My preferences have no veto over them.

And you are using that word, “salvation,” again in a way different from how the writers of the New Testament conceived of the term.

The problem is that people think saying “The Judgment is based on thoughts, words, and deeds” is the same as saying one can “deserve” or “have a right to” membership in New Jerusalem based on them. This is a straw man.

If my (non-existent) kid brings home a good report card, and I decide to reward him by taking him to Yankee Stadium, it doesn’t mean he “earned” it..it doesn’t mean that he “deserved” it based on his grades. I could have not taken him, and it wouldn’t mean I was doing anything wrong. He had no “right” to the trip. It was something I choose [that happened to be based on his performance by my own choice of adjudging.]

When the people of Nineveh received mercy, it was certainly not because God was required to give it to them. But it was also quite clearly due to their repentance. (Jonah 3:10) It didn’t violate God’s sense of justice to relent of punishment based only on repentance, but it also did not mean they “earned” their deliverance, for God was under no requirement to give it.

j: But if I read these right, you’re basically questioning CMP’s premise that a doctrinal basis has any place in defining the church and its essential beliefs, and that we should be concerned with assessing the standing of anyone who claims to be a believer.

Yes, though you bring up a good point. If Michael is talking about the basics for the church (or a church) then I agree there is a list of minimal or core doctrine. But I don’t apply that to individuals.

As such, the trajectoral approach seems either irrelevant to CMP’s question, or it seems to declare CMP’s question irrelevant.

More the latter. I still think one can grade doctrine from central to peripheral, though even that is not so simple. For example I see creationism as foundational but not necessarily central. I see the virgin birth as more central but less foundational. Even the resurrection which is the most central is somewhat dependant on other less central but more foundational beliefs.

granted, you already said you think CMP is slightly off the mark, but you did also mention core beliefs. These questions seem to address attitude.

I think it would be hard to be a Christian and deny a literal resurrection, thus I guess it is core for the individual. But because I view it as a trajectory, it matters more which direction one is heading in. The further one starts from Christ the less he had right belief, but as he follows Jesus his wrong beliefs will be replaced by correct ones. Someone else may have had better teaching, but is not following so is more likely to abandon orthodoxy in favour of heterodoxy.

Thus a follower may have less correct beliefs than a non-follower depending on where both start.

And our interaction with fellow believers may mirror this. We are glad when someone adjusts his beliefs to align with God, even if he still believes errors; we are sad when Christians abandon truth, even if they retain some correct ideas.

Like David Rudell’s post on 8/11, once you put number 1 as number 1 you will eliminate everything and nothing gets through the filter. For example, if I make a statement like “baptism is not required for my salvation” some might then say, “you are not a Christian!” (The statement could be any other basis on which belief triggers debate or separation.) But that very complaint reveals that there is something higher in priority in the definition of the “minimum” as agreement is not the basis for the complaint.

Historicity is a dangerous criteria except as a weak flashlight in a dark closet that you opened because the Word on the outside said ‘coats’. To my mind, you have to start with your number 4 and carefully use 3, 2, and 1 as imperfect means of pointing to the application of 1.

Someone brought up the question earlier of “what is it required someone believe to receive salvation.” I don’t think that inventory or list is at all related to “What are the fundamentals of Christianity.”

I think we live in world where there is a great deal of desire to “defend the faith,” so it is natural to think about things in terms of “what does it mean to be a ‘real’ Christian.” And it is natural, obviously, for that to get linked to “what do you have to believe to be saved.”

But another way to see it is “What is critical to Christianity” in the sense of “What, if it were shown to be untrue, would utterly invalidate the Christian faith?”

When the question is asked that way, I think we come down to the items that get repeated over and over again in Acts:

i) Jesus is the Christ of the Living God revealed in the Old Testament, and His works validate Jacob’s God.
ii) Jesus was raised from the dead.
iii) Jesus has been given all authority over heaven and earth, and that extends at least to the point of His judging the living and the dead.

I think when we look at critical passages [The end of Matthew, Peter’s long sermons in early Acts, what we gather Paul’s message is from later discussions in Acts, Paul’s short creed in Romans 10:9 and the discussion in 1st Corinthians 5:12-28.] The above is the picture we get. Note how the end of Matthew links those two parts of number iii
“All authority over heaven and earth has been given to me THEREFORE go make disciples of all nations, teaching them do all things I have commanded you…”
John 5:22-23 is another passage showing this linkage between Christ’s Judgment and Christ’s exaltation.

Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist:

1) JND Kelly said that all the apostolic fathers held to this. Check.

2) Certainly. Check.

3) Those who believe in it have always affirmed so. Check.

4) John 6:53. Check.

Of course, here is where all the arguments start among protestants, and make the 4 criteria to be irrelevant in a sea of argument and counter argument.

John, I would re-check 1, 3, 4 on this one!

1. Apostolic Fathers alone, even if this was true, does not qualify for always, everywhere, by all.

2. Biblical clarity is hard to sustain: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/06/why-i-dont-buy-the-roman-catholic-interpretation-of-john-6-in-defense-of-transubstantiation/

3. See number 2.

(1) You aren’t going to find a doctrine that better fulfills “everywhere always by all”, unless you include the protestants of relatively recent times. In which case the “everywhere, always by all” becomes revokable. If its revokable, isn’t this criteria a nonsense?

And JND Kelly says it was “unanimous” in the apostolic fathers. Are these criteria revokable or not?

(3 & 4) See (1). If 1500 years of Christians thought so, who am I to argue? Arianism has better support in antiquity than the prospect that the real presence isn’t clear.

e.g. Cyprian: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life in you. Therefore do we ask that our Bread, which is Christ, be given to us daily”.

Who is going to decide what teachings are clear? Is there any teaching that is not disputed?

John,

“You aren’t going to find a doctrine that better fulfills “everywhere always by all””

-resurrection of Christ
-second coming
-man is sinful
-Christ is the God-man
-man must have faith
-God created all things ex nihilo

And on and on I could go. The real presence does not pass my tests at all unless you are not understanding what the tests are about.

-resurrection of Christ – GNOSTICISM, no bodily resurrection
second coming – FULL PRETERISM,
man is sinful – PELAGIUS – man is neutral agent
Christ is God-man – ARIUS
God created ex nihilo – GNOSTICISM

I don’t see any reason to believe your list has better support “everywhere always and by all”. Unless we toss out heretics/schismatics. But then the early church tossed out those not believing the real presence, so you would be ipso facto conceding defeat. But if you want to try and prove your list has better support, I’d be certainly interested to see the proof. Claiming it and showing it are not the same.

Certainly the early church had its own list, and the real presence was on the list.

John, you should read Irenaeus on this subject and try to get an understanding of Apostolic Succession. The very reason why the Gnosticism is not part of orthodoxy is because it failed the tests!! Same with Pelagius, Arius, and, in our current day, Full-Preterism.

Irenaeus defined apostolic succession by:

“reckoning up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and demonstrating the succession of these men to our own times”

That’s why non-belief in the real presence fails the exact same tests that Gnosticism, Pelagius, Arius, full-preterism fails. All the churches who can demonstrate their succession to the apostles believe the real presence.

Your definition of “protestant succession” fails Irenaeus’ definition.

Anyway, is apostolic succession on your list of essential doctrines? If not, how can you appeal to it?

Yes, actually it is. This whole post is in the spirit of Apostolic Succession.

However, your rather odd inistance that a belief in the “real presence” is an essential on level with the deity of Christ is rather troublesome and make me think you are either trying to cause trouble or are too bent in your traditions to think honestly on this subject.

However, I will just ask you a question and get some perspective on where you are coming from.

How do you suggest one judge whether a doctrine is essential for Christianity?

That’s why non-belief in the real presence fails the exact same tests that Gnosticism, Pelagius, Arius, full-preterism fails. All the churches who can demonstrate their succession to the apostles believe the real presence.

But that doesn’t prove that either Jesus or the Apostles actually taught “the real presence” in the way the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches have taught about the Eucharist for most of their histories.

We have no evidence in the New Testament itself, including the writings of the Apostles, of the human office of a priest who was to preside over the offering of the Eucharist and the effecting of the change of the elements of the Eucahrist. Thus, though this is something that “all the churches who can demonstrate their succession to the apostles believe” and practice, this fact doesn’t mean that it’s an essential for Christianity.

“either trying to cause trouble or are too bent in your traditions to think honestly on this subject.”

Well… it seems your accusation is applicable to all those in the historic church, starting with Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnaeans who talks about the condemnation of those who confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ. And the church had historically seen, in for example Ignatius, a definition of the church as the faithful gathered around the bishop/elder and taking the eucharist as the real body of Christ. Call me a troublemaker if you like, but call the Fathers that too.

Of course, if you want to jettison the fathers… but that wouldn’t do well for your 4 points.

“How do you suggest one judge whether a doctrine is essential for Christianity?”

By its nature, “one” should not be judging. The Church should judge such things, just like Paul consulted the apostles and elders when a dispute arose.

Of course the whole problem of what is “essential” and what is disposable is only an issue when everyone is judging themselves, splintering off into numerous factions, and then left to ponder individually who they can now consider within some pale of orthodoxy.

The whole issue of wanting to agree on the “essentials” instead of the “fullness” is itself a doctrine that fails the 4 points. (1Cor. 1:10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.)

“We have no evidence in the New Testament itself, including the writings of the Apostles, of the human office of a priest who was to preside over the offering of the Eucharist and the effecting of the change of the elements of the Eucahrist.”

Of course, we have no evidence in the New Testament itself of sola scriptura. But leaving that aside….

If we agreed on the fact of the real presence, but merely disagreed on the who/where/when it comes about, that would be one thing. Then we might consider the application of Michael’s 4 point theory. But such is not the case.

Okay, John, I’ll jettison Sola Scriptura (or at least Solo Scriptura) if you’ll jettison the office of the human priest who presides over the Eucharist and presides over the claimed change of the elements (Orthodox) and/or effects the claimed change of the elements (Roman Catholic).

I don’t mind sticking with what the Lord Jesus and the Apostles taught. 🙂

John,

“By its nature, “one” should not be judging. The Church should judge such things”

Got it. It is a little too difficult for a committed Catholic to enter into this discussion and it not turn into a necessary discussion over authority. You are required to believe that the eucharist is essential. Yet, even then, it is not an essential if you don’t believe it is, even from your tradition (invincible ignorance!).

Therefore, I will bow out and let my original post stand.

You know I can find some (not alot, but some) support in the writings of the Early Church which supports the concept of a semi centralized organization with powers in the Bishops. However, even with this I can find no support for the infallibility of these sources until centuries later or for the amount of authority which has been vested in the Bishop of Rome.

As CMP indicates though the issue of authority in the church might be best handled in another post. I know I would certainly like to see such a post because it seems that too often we end up with the extremes. We have the Catholic extreme where the leadership claims to be infallible (no offense, but given church history I find this claim laughable) and then we have another extreme where every Tom, Dick, and Harry can make a claim to leadership. There has to be some middle ground between these two.