R
Runner
Guest
That's my point. It depends on who you ask; "what is the only Christian essential" as to what answer you get. I wouldn't take John Lennon's answer. 'I can only imagine' what he would have said
Right, that's why I'm asking - to see what answers I get. So far, no one has suggested that the absolute bottom-line essentials include any of the doctrines that have Christians at each other's throats all the time, on these forums and elsewhere, which I find rather interesting. No one is going to insist that the Trinity, for example, is an essential?
I specifically included the language "prayerfully doing your best to follow the teachings of Jesus as set forth in the four gospels" so this wouldn't turn into yet another OSAS vs. OSNAS bloodbath. I don't think any species of Christian disagrees that we should prayerfully do our best to follow the teachings of Jesus. If I had omitted any language like this, the OSNAS folks would have immediately called me on it, and we'd have been off on another OSAS vs. OSNAS tangent. On the other hand, lots of people think Jesus' teachings are wonderful and should be followed, even though they don't think he was special in any way different from, say, Buddha, so this in itself clearly isn't enough.
When I ask if the participants here would recognize someone as a Christian brother if his theology were no more than my 110 words, I really mean no more than those 110 words.
When I say in point 1 "You are a created being in a created universe, wholly dependent on the creator God," I don't mean "wholly dependent on the creator God, who is of course a Trinity comprising the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."
When I say in point 3 "You and other humans have breached your relationship with God through disobedience and unrighteousness," I don't mean "precisely as described in Genesis."
When I say in point 5 "the life, death and resurrection of Jesus," I don't mean "including the Virgin Birth, the various miracles, a penal substitutionary Atonement as opposed to any other kind, a bodily Resurrection as opposed to any other kind, etc."
When I say in point 3 "You and other humans have breached your relationship with God through disobedience and unrighteousness," I don't mean "precisely as described in Genesis."
When I say in point 5 "the life, death and resurrection of Jesus," I don't mean "including the Virgin Birth, the various miracles, a penal substitutionary Atonement as opposed to any other kind, a bodily Resurrection as opposed to any other kind, etc."
In other words, I am saying that my hypothetical Christian's theology consists of no more than the 110 words with none of the associated doctrines read into those words. What I'm asking is, is this person a Christian or are some of those omitted doctrines so fundamental that they must be considered essential to even being a Christian?
You aren't allowed to say "Well, of course the Virgin Birth is an essential - it's right there in Matthew and Luke in black and white!" This is imposing a particular understanding of the Bible as an absolute bottom-line essential - which is OK if someone wants to do so, but the hypothetical Christian I've described doesn't claim any particular understanding. He may not believe those portions of Matthew and Luke are inspired or that they were intended to be historically accurate. He may never have given the Virgin Birth any thought at all - but he does sincerely believe and try to live those 110 words.
