|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What is the common essential Christian doctrine?
|
shadeson
Shipmate
# 17132
|
Posted
A recent home group discussion centered on fundamentalism and what it meant to each of us.
Can shipmates reduce Christianity to a fundamental belief which they consider is the common necessity for the name of 'Christian'? If there are some (or one), what are they today?
[ 20. January 2014, 12:40: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posts: 136 | From: uk | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
The word itself is reductionist and therefore unhelpful.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Campbellite
Ut unum sint
# 1202
|
Posted
The Christian faith is full and rich and lavishly fruitful. Why would anyone WANT to "reduce" it?
--------------------
I upped mine. Up yours.
Suffering for Jesus since 1966.
WTFWED?
Posts: 12001 | From: between keyboard and chair | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Christian fundamentalism has several, somewhat overlapping meanings, each of them quite specific.
None of them are really about a single "fundamental belief", they are more about ways of interpreting the Bible that are seen by their proponents as meritworthy because they are "back to basics".
Are you seeking a discussion about what we variously understand by "Christian Fundamentalism" or what single thing the various people here understand as being the fundamental aspect of their faith?
[ 19. January 2014, 20:37: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I agree that the title of the thread is confusing. 'Fundamentalism' is commonly understood to represent a specific flavour of Christianity that certainly isn't understood to be 'fundamental' to Christians in general.
The 'Meaning of Christianity' thread is currently discussing what Christianity can be boiled down to, if you like, but it would probably be easier to come up with examples of 'fundamentalism' as a flavour of Christianity than it is to establish what all Christians should 'fundamentally' agree on!
Anyway, this is what slightly irritates me at the moment: Churches Together in Britain holds that participating denominations must to be willing to assent to certain creeds and statements of faith that are orthodox. But how this is interpreted apparently differs from area to area. I know of a CT network that refuses to consider entry to non-Triniarian Oneness Pentecostals. Yet here on the Ship I read that Quakers and Unitarians have been influential in some CT networks. This doesn't seem fair to me.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I agree that the title of the thread is confusing. 'Fundamentalism' is commonly understood to represent a specific flavour of Christianity that certainly isn't understood to be 'fundamental' to Christians in general.
The 'Meaning of Christianity' thread is currently discussing what Christianity can be boiled down to, if you like, but it would probably be easier to come up with examples of 'fundamentalism' as a flavour of Christianity than it is to establish what all Christians should 'fundamentally' agree on!
Anyway, this is what slightly irritates me at the moment: Churches Together in Britain holds that participating denominations must to be willing to assent to certain creeds and statements of faith that are orthodox. But how this is interpreted apparently differs from area to area. I know of a CT network that refuses to consider entry to non-Triniarian Oneness Pentecostals. Yet here on the Ship I read that Quakers and Unitarians have been influential in some CT networks. This doesn't seem fair to me.
I think with Quakers (I was always under the impression that Quakers are part of CT but Unitarians aren't?), they are a significant part of the UK's religious history and they are not non-Trinitarian by default - it's just that many of their members are. By that criteria, you may as well not have the CoE be part of CT ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I wasn't aware of Unitarians even being in the UK - are they the same as Universalist Unitarians? Iirc not all Unitarians are UU?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think with Quakers (I was always under the impression that Quakers are part of CT but Unitarians aren't?), they are a significant part of the UK's religious history and they are not non-Trinitarian by default - it's just that many of their members are. By that criteria, you may as well not have the CoE be part of CT
Well, indeed! But it's the inconsistency I find unfair. Is it really a matter of which groups have been around the longest? That's a bit shocking! I thought it was down to the creeds a church subscribes to, whether formally or informally. Are the Quakers and Unitarians more (formally or informally) Trinitarian than Oneness Pentecostas?
quote:
I wasn't aware of Unitarians even being in the UK - are they the same as Universalist Unitarians? Iirc not all Unitarians are UU?
Surely you've heard of British Unitarianism? You've lived in Coventry and there's a Unitarian church there. There are fewer Unitarians here than Quakers, but they certainly exist.
[code]
[ 20. January 2014, 05:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
shadeson
Shipmate
# 17132
|
Posted
Eutychus quote:
Are you seeking a discussion about what we variously understand by "Christian Fundamentalism" or what single thing the various people here understand as being the fundamental aspect of their faith?
Yes, the latter. Although the housegroup discussion was looking at this aspect in all religions, I have not yet asked what individuals consider to be essential to their Christian faith.
Sorry this thread is similar to asking 'the meaning of Christianity', but I'm not sure that I understand that question!
What is the root power of Christianity that brings people into a relationship with God?
Is it like Islam with an inspired inviolable book and proscibed acts of worship? Is it like Judeaism with rules of behaviour and dress? I think not.
I don't want the discussion to be about the validity and reasons for my own faith, but what inspires faith in other Christians. Is it the atonement aspect for instance?
Many years ago there was plenty of bathwater, like the creation story and the judgement of God on evildoers and heaven for believers, which seems to have been thrown out. How far can this go and Christianity still retain its power to change people?
Posts: 136 | From: uk | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I wasn't aware of Unitarians even being in the UK - are they the same as Universalist Unitarians? Iirc not all Unitarians are UU?
We have two Unitarian Chapels in Bristol
[code]
[ 20. January 2014, 05:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
I wasn't aware of Unitarians even being in the UK - are they the same as Universalist Unitarians? Iirc not all Unitarians are UU?
We have two Unitarian Chapels in Bristol
I think the UUs only exist in the US and Canada, following the merger of Unitarians and Universalists in 1961.
[code]
[ 20. January 2014, 05:15: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
AIUI, the term "Fundamentalism" comes out of the proclamation of the Five Fundamentals of Christianity, in a book called, oddly enough, "The Fundamentals, published in 1910.
These are:
Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
Virgin birth of Jesus
Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
Bodily resurrection of Jesus
Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus
This became popular Wikipedia says that quote:
Fundamentalist groups generally refuse to participate in events with any group that does not share its essential doctrines. In contrast, Evangelical groups, while they typically agree on the theology "fundamentals" as expressed in The Fundamentals, often are willing to participate in events with religious groups who do not hold to the essential doctrines.[8]
The article then goes on to describe how the term has come to cover all sorts of people who are determined to reduce participation in their group to a basic statement of belief, acting then on that belief to ostracise or even attack other groups, whether they are Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or even, interestingly, atheist.
Apparently, one can believe fundamentally in the Wrong Kind of non-God.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
A recent home group discussion centered on fundamentalism and what it meant to each of us.
Can shipmates reduce Christianity to a fundamental belief which they consider is the common necessity for the name of 'Christian'? If there are some (or one), what are they today?
Fundamentalism is a word that comes loaded with meaning beyond what is the lowest common denominator in all schools of Christian belief.
I'd venture to say that virtually all Christians believe in the notion that God send Christ into the world to save people from the power of sin. You are likely to get a number of interpretations as to what it means, but I think the statement itself is fairly uncontroversial among self-professing Christians.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
OddJob
Shipmate
# 17591
|
Posted
Many folk use this term when 'literalism' would be more appropriate.
I've always taken the correct meaning to be a faith which is fundamental to a person's approach to life.
Posts: 97 | From: West Midlands | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
We have two Unitarian Chapels in Bristol
Samuel Taylor Coleridge was minister at one of the Bristol Unitarian chapels, before he became a full-time poet and philosopher. (He subsequently returned to Trinitarianism and the CofE.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
I think with Quakers (I was always under the impression that Quakers are part of CT but Unitarians aren't?), they are a significant part of the UK's religious history and they are not non-Trinitarian by default - it's just that many of their members are. By that criteria, you may as well not have the CoE be part of CT
Well, indeed! But it's the inconsistency I find unfair. Is it really a matter of which groups have been around the longest? That's a bit shocking! I thought it was down to the creeds a church subscribes to, whether formally or informally. Are the Quakers and Unitarians more (formally or informally) Trinitarian than Oneness Pentecostas?
quote:
I wasn't aware of Unitarians even being in the UK - are they the same as Universalist Unitarians? Iirc not all Unitarians are UU?
Surely you've heard of British Unitarianism? You've lived in Coventry and there's a Unitarian church there. There are fewer Unitarians here than Quakers, but they certainly exist.
I don't know what the CT criteria is.
I had no idea there was a Unitarian church in Coventry - when I was there I was not massively aware of different churches in general tbh (was not a Christian at the time). I thought Unitarianism had died out in the UK.
[code]
[ 20. January 2014, 05:16: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
Eutychus quote:
Are you seeking a discussion about what we variously understand by "Christian Fundamentalism" or what single thing the various people here understand as being the fundamental aspect of their faith?
Yes, the latter. Although the housegroup discussion was looking at this aspect in all religions, I have not yet asked what individuals consider to be essential to their Christian faith.
Sorry this thread is similar to asking 'the meaning of Christianity', but I'm not sure that I understand that question!
What is the root power of Christianity that brings people into a relationship with God?
Is it like Islam with an inspired inviolable book and proscibed acts of worship? Is it like Judeaism with rules of behaviour and dress? I think not.
I don't want the discussion to be about the validity and reasons for my own faith, but what inspires faith in other Christians. Is it the atonement aspect for instance?
Many years ago there was plenty of bathwater, like the creation story and the judgement of God on evildoers and heaven for believers, which seems to have been thrown out. How far can this go and Christianity still retain its power to change people?
I think 'fundamentalism' is an unhelpful term here.
Also re Judaism, I don't think rules of dress are really applicable to Jews other than the Orthodox, and even then they vary. Most Jews will not keep tznius.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I don't know what the CT criteria is.
I had no idea there was a Unitarian church in Coventry - when I was there I was not massively aware of different churches in general tbh (was not a Christian at the time). I thought Unitarianism had died out in the UK.
I've just looked at the minutes for one of our CT meetings from last year. The expectation is that local churches will normally sign a creedal document before joining CT, but if a church refuses to do so for whatever reason then 75% of current members have to be in agreement before such a church can join. I suppose this is what creates the discrepancies from area to area.
Regarding the Unitarians, the Chamberlains of Birmingham (including the PM Neville Chamberlain) belonged to that faith, and there's a Unitarian church in the city. The Newington Green Unitarian church in London has even been growning in recent years, apparently. There's also an interesting Unitarian blogger called 'Pluralist Speaks' (but he spends a lot of time complaining about Christians).
But the point is, as a movement, contemporary Unitarianism isn't ASAIF defined as creedally Christian, even though there may be Christians in it. Yet Oneness Pentecostalism is normally defined as Christian despite its creedal unorthodoxy.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
'Fundamentalism' is not about asking what the fundamentals of the Christian faith are.
It's about asserting that you know what the fundamentals are, and that anyone who came to a different conclusion, no matter how genuinely, is not a Christian.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Jade Constable -- I think you may be confused by the acronym "CT" which has appeared on this thread. It would throw me too, because what I think it means doesn't exist in North America -- or any place outside the UK. "CT" I think in this context means "churches together" -- which churches and how together continue to me a mystery to me.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Jade Constable -- I think you may be confused by the acronym "CT" which has appeared on this thread. It would throw me too, because what I think it means doesn't exist in North America -- or any place outside the UK. "CT" I think in this context means "churches together" -- which churches and how together continue to me a mystery to me.
John
Erm no, I know who Churches Together are and knew what CT meant. And I'm in the UK. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I don't see what that has to do with thinking that Unitarianism had died out in the UK.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OddJob:
Many folk use this term when 'literalism' would be more appropriate.
There never has been and never will be a consistent literalist interpretation of Scripture.
Even those who insist on a literalist hermeneutic in some areas (such as dispenationalists and YECers) where others wouldn't, are forced to be non-literalist in many other areas.
Literalism is therefore not a useful general description of any group of Christians.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Originally posted by OddJob:
Many folk use this term when 'literalism' would be more appropriate.
There never has been and never will be a consistent literalist interpretation of Scripture.
Even those who insist on a literalist hermeneutic in some areas (such as dispenationalists and YECers) where others wouldn't, are forced to be non-literalist in many other areas.
Literalism is therefore not a useful general description of any group of Christians.
Neither YEC nor dispensationalism was a sine qua non for the original fundamentalists.
[code]
[ 20. January 2014, 05:37: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Scratching my head here. Discussions of Fundamentalism nearly always start or end up in Dead Horses, because they cannot be discussed without getting into biblical inerrancy. That's a DH topic, as is well known. Innerrancy is not the same as literalism (nods to KC re that).
But what shadeson wants to discuss is this (from the exchanges with Eutychus)
quote:
what single thing the various people here understand as being the fundamental aspect of their faith?
For example, my answers to that would be two fold. Belief in that God is "Three in One and One in three", i.e. a trinity in unity as best we can understand Him, and belief in the primacy of grace (not karma) in our life with God and one another. Them's the two legs I stand on, for theology and behaviour. Pushed to a single phrase, I would say, simply "God is Love".
We can discuss those sorts of expressions here without difficulty, but Fundamentalism, as normally understood here, belongs in Dead Horses. So I guess that for anyone who wants to talk about that, the best place is Dead Horses.
Can we try to keep this Purgatorial? Happy to leave the thread here on that basis.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
shadeson
Shipmate
# 17132
|
Posted
Barnabas62
quote:
Scratching my head here. Discussions of Fundamentalism nearly always start or end up in Dead Horses, because they cannot be discussed without getting into biblical inerrancy.
Maybe the word is wrong. I was only quoting the title of a housegroup discussion point.
Would "what is the common essential doctrine of Christian belief?" have been a better starting point?
If it is bible inerrancy for most Christians - then for me that is a valid reply. As is the more thoughtful one from Mockingale
The thread was certainly started by our annual lonely united meeting for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. It made me wonder what we could agree on. To be fair, everyone says its different ways of worship which separate us but a gut feeling says its something more.
Jade Constable
Sorry about the quick characterisation of Judeaism - I should have said diet rather than dress.
Posts: 136 | From: uk | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
God is love and He wants humanity to have abundant life.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
AIUI, the term "Fundamentalism" comes out of the proclamation of the Five Fundamentals of Christianity, in a book called, oddly enough, "The Fundamentals, published in 1910.
These are:
Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
Virgin birth of Jesus
Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
Bodily resurrection of Jesus
Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus
Swedenborgians accept all of these except the third.
So I have always thought that Fundamentalism revolved especially around their take on the blood atonement doctrine.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
I'd have said that the bottom line of Christianity is that Jesus is the definitive revelation of God. Or in Michael Ramsey's words, God is Christlike and in him is no unChristlikeness at all.
You probably have to put in a few qualifications about using the Gospels as the most reliable source for Jesus' life, as opposed to e.g. some speculations about Jesus being a druid discovered in the mid-twentieth century. (Second century gnostics are a special case, being somewhere on the borders.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
Barnabas62
quote:
Scratching my head here. Discussions of Fundamentalism nearly always start or end up in Dead Horses, because they cannot be discussed without getting into biblical inerrancy.
Maybe the word is wrong. I was only quoting the title of a housegroup discussion point.
Would "what is the common essential doctrine of Christian belief?" have been a better starting point?
Thought that myself. Let's give that a whirl - I can change the title.
B62, Purg Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
"what is the common essential doctrine of Christian belief?"
Jesus is Lord.
Everything else flows from that.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I said this during a United Service yesterday.
Despite our many differences of belief and practice, there are core values and doctrines which we hold in common: issues, for instance, such as recognising Jesus as the Son of God and the Saviour of the world.
Now, what it may mean for us to call him “Son of God” is a legitimate matter for discussion, and how we understand him to be the world’s Saviour can be a worthy topic for debate.
But we can – we must – at least agree on the words (if not necessarily their interpretation), which in turn should mean that we can unite around one of the simpler historic Creeds or Confessions of Faith.
It seemed to ring bells with the congregation.
[ 20. January 2014, 13:04: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
PS I reminded them that, traditionally, Baptists have steered away from Creeds. All we have as a denomination is our Declaration of Principle.
(Missed edit window).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
I think what Dafyd said neatly and succinctly expresses the common essential:
Jesus is the definitive revelation of God.
This allows for many different interpretations of what Jesus's life and death and resurrection meant, and mean, then and now. Also "definitive revelation" sidesteps the Trinitarian issue and the problem of how exactly Jesus is both human and divine...
Studying Jesus's life leads us to see what that revelation shows us--that God is love, etc...
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
"Jesus is Lord" as doctrine, is I think subordinate to Trinitarian belief which tells you who Jesus is and what and who he is Lord of.
Are Jehovah's witnesses, or any other group which is not Trinitarian, Christian. In some sense they are all followers of Jesus.
I guess if we want to be inclusive, we might say that any group which self-declares as Christian should be treated as Christian. Which would make the common doctrine "self-declaration of being Christian". Which doesn't strike me as being all that full of meaning.
This may be more difficult than it looks at first sight! Something I guess we can learn from 2 millenia of Christian history.
[ 20. January 2014, 15:44: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"Jesus is Lord" as doctrine, is I think subordinate to Trinitarian belief which tells you who Jesus is and what and who he is Lord of.
Are Jehovah's witnesses, or any other group which is not Trinitarian, Christian? In some sense they are all followers of Jesus.
I do find that this is the question that often comes up. My denomination, the New Church, is often excluded from Christian circles because it is not considered Trinitarian.
Yet we consider Jesus Christ to be God Himself, and acknowledge the Trinity as a metaphor. Yet this is not good enough.
So I would agree that the Trinity is often considered to be the defining Christian doctrine.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
"what is the common essential doctrine of Christian belief?"
Jesus is Lord.
Everything else flows from that.
wondering what 'Lord' means.
In the NT, Paul's use of 'Lord' was in rivalry to Caesar as 'Lord' and all; that the Roman Empire stood for. Quite a political belief flowing from it, therefore.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Are Jehovah's witnesses, or any other group which is not Trinitarian, Christian. In some sense they are all followers of Jesus.
That is why I love the Acts category of "God-fearers". One of my favourite ways of trolling evo congregations is to tell them that Cornelius would have made a good muslim, and God answered his prayers by an angelic vision.
The "God-fearer" category opens up a whole spectrum of people that can be recognised by Christians as on some kind of a path with God and with whom we can therefore have some affinity.
It's hard to draw distinctions along exactly denominational/ecclesiastical lines, but certainly as far as I'm concerned many JWs easily fall within the category of God-fearers... even if they may need the "way of the Lord explaining to them more adequately"
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The Nicene Creed.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
shadeson
Shipmate
# 17132
|
Posted
Dafyd
quote:
I'd have said that the bottom line of Christianity is that Jesus is the definitive revelation of God. Or in Michael Ramsey's words, God is Christlike and in him is no unChristlikeness at all.
I was hoping that Dafyd's words would appear.
I feel that unless "the reason for our faith" can be said clearly to someone ignorant of Christianity, then there is something wrong.
And I agree that this is the common centre of our faith.
Hence "Jesus is Lord" would convey little and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity probably just split Christians apart through different explanations.
Ultimately, the power to change a person must lay in the revelation of the character of God as seen in Jesus. After that I think you are on your own with the Bible and church history and how other Christians see things.
Posts: 136 | From: uk | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Ubi Caritas: God is Love, and where true Love is, God himself is there.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
Just to provide a bit of clarity:
Quakers, strictly speaking (at least historically--who knows what you would get if you took a poll today) are neither Trinitarian nor non-Trinitarian. We have simply refused to use the word "trinity," or to attempt to parse the internal relations of God as Father/creator, God as incarnate in Jesus, and God as immanent Spirit. We reject Trinitarian theology not because it's wrong, but because it's vain speculation that leads no one closer to the Light.
And we're not non-creedal, we're anti-creedal (most Friends, now that the anti-Papist hysteria of the 17th century has receded, would regard sacraments as Mostly Harmless. We would not be so generous toward the creeds).
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
andras
Shipmate
# 2065
|
Posted
Karl Barth is said to have responded to a naive question from a young American student - about whether he could reduce all his learning to a single sentence - with a long pause, a lot of pipe cleaning and stuffing, and finally with the following:
Yes, I think I can.
Jesus loves me, this I know
For the Bible tells me so.
As a distillation of his decades of Biblical scholarship I think that takes some beating.
--------------------
God's on holiday.
(Why borrow a cat?)
Adrian Plass
Posts: 544 | From: Tregaron | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
What is the motivation for wanting to identify a common essential doctrine? What would be its value? What use might be made of it?
There are many interesting categories of people, and you can amuse yourself by wondering what makes someone an Essex girl, an intellectual, a chav, or a member of Generation X. (What's the term for someone who can't think of any stereotypes that are less than twenty years old?)
It can be fun, and it might be useful, to see how people fit together, who belongs with whom, and where am I diverging from you.
It gets, I think, worth being suspicious about, when the motivation is about the consequences of defining people. Drawing lines, excluding or disciplining others, is often on the Christian agenda. 'Essential doctrine' is a legalistic phrase. Doctrine is itself a bit of Christian jargon. Why not say teaching? Why define Christianity in terms of acceptable ideas rather than attitudes or behaviour?
This is a game I don't approve of. I know that there are people who like to play it to the disadvantage of others. I believe that it turns Christianity into something ugly.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Micah 6:8
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
This is a game I don't approve of. I know that there are people who like to play it to the disadvantage of others. I believe that it turns Christianity into something ugly.
I agree.
Of course, in saying this you are playing the same game - disapproving of what is going on here and defining Christianity accordingly.
But I agree with this way of playing it.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I guess the issue of definition is that, historically at the very least, what became the orthodox church had quite a lot to contend with in terms of diversity.
Elaine Pagels, who is pretty diverse herself, describes in her book "Beyond Belief" the pastoral circumstances which provoked Irenaeus' reaction to at least one Valentinian (gnostic) group. This group had poo-pooed the torture and martyrdom of some church members who were thought to be "simpler" and "less gnosis-enlightened" than those in the group. Irenaeus saw, correctly as far as I can see, that this desperately unChristian behaviour flowed from wrong beliefs about who Jesus was and what it meant to follow him. "Against Heresies" was not some kind of intellectual/theological logic-chopping game, but rooted in some pretty desperate real life issues.
Time's moved on. Personally, I have absolutely zero problems in identifying with Freddy as a wise and compassionate Shipmate, who expresses himself in very Christlike ways. Bet I'm not alone in that, neither. If Swedenborgian theology is heterodox over the trinity by traditional standards, is that really important. Freddy seems to have got "following Jesus" real good so far as I can see. He's a Christian who is heterdox about the traditional understandings of the Trinity. Doesn't appear to have affected his ability to follow the Jesus he loves.
I think the need for some boundaries does still exist, but that need seems to me to operate in a very different world to the world of the first four centuries of the faith. Personally, I keep as many doors open as possible.
God is Love does come first. It's good to be humble about defining God, but particularly clear eyed in recognising that agape love is profoundly different to the kind of romanticised uses of that word today. And I find that focusing on Trinity and Grace helps me a great deal in living out God is Love by following Jesus.
YMMV!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
In the Divine Comedy, Dante encounters the souls of Guido and Buoconte da Montefeltro. Guido was a Fransiscan who, on the basis of his involved and developed theology justified, to himself, an act of treachery and was found, by Dante, in Hell. Buoconte was a wild young man whom, in his last moments, called upon the intercession of the Mother of God and was saved. I think that is basically the Gospel. We have to genuinely desire the mercy of God, or at least, to acknowledge it when it meets us. Everything else is arid scholasticism.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Grace, Gildas? You know in your 'knower" when Grace is present. And if anyone's "knower" is opaque on Grace, then they cannot see the wood for the trees? However learned they may be?
Love that view. Scholarship can help with confusion; also create more! Particularly if it is arid. But, thank God, it isn't all arid.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
To answer the OP: What is the common essential Christian doctrine?
The divinty of Jesus Christ who died for our sins and rose again.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
shadeson
Shipmate
# 17132
|
Posted
hatless
quote:
Why define Christianity in terms of acceptable ideas rather than attitudes or behaviour?
The term "acceptable idea" is a lousy way of descibing the core transforming belief of many Christians. In the 'Week of Prayer for Christian Unity', I was trying to figure out what doctrine (aka, teaching) Christians are united on as opposed to the wonderful diversity that we can excude each other for.
In my neck of the woods, it is also true that the Churches will tolerate many variations of belief but not those that regard Jesus as a man only.
The deity and character of Jesus cannot be denied without Christianity losing its power and just becoming moral teaching.
You have landed on another thread though, which Ive been wondering about - perhaps to be posted later.
Posts: 136 | From: uk | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
