Slaying sacred cows-- the myth of essential Christian beliefs

[Mister E]

What are essential beliefs?

That term "essential" means very different things to different people and groups of people (denominations). What a Southern Baptist considers to be essential is different from what a Seventh Day Adventist or a Calvinist or a Preterist would insist as being fundamental or foundational belief. Ahhhh... there's the rub. It's the belief part that remains the same for ALL of them.

These individuals or groups might consider something to be essential to believe in order to fellowship with them or to be a member in good standing with them-- but there confidence and convictions remain firmly on things they believe. (tongue in cheek).

So this thread is dedicated to discussing some of the sacred cows that some people insist are these firm foundations upon which they construct their paradigms of faith. I'll propose that where it comes to beliefs that are truly essential- there are few.

Jesus taught-- "Have faith in God" (Mark 11) -and he left it pretty open-ended.

He said- "Believe in God, believe also in me." (John 14:1)

He said- "This is the work of God-- that you believe in him who He sent." (John 6:22)

What that exactly means is otherwise undefined by him. In other words, everything else is up for debate. You might not think so, but he did. In fact much of his time here was spent trying to convince people that most of the things they were so convinced of were completely wrong. Yet most of those people couldn't set aside what they believed in exchange for what he taught.

So bring your sacred cow. Let's kill it.

 

[Mister E]

The thought for this thread was prompted by Runner where in various places he said the following-

My Christianity is a very basic set of what I call “Christian essentials” that is far more generic than any of the standard creeds or statements of faith. It does, however, express what I genuinely believe about God and his plan for humans and what I think it means to be a Christian.

Bravo! I agree. Go generic where scripture is generic. Resist the urge to "insist" on things when scripture itself, and particularly Jesus does not.

I don’t “disbelieve” the doctrines many of you regard as essential. I simply don’t “believe” them either. If there is, in fact, something like hell, I trust we’ll see in the end how it’s worthy of the perfectly wise, perfectly just, perfectly holy, perfectly loving God in whom we trust. Ditto for the Trinity. I think it's a human way of trying to come to grips with an unfathomable mystery - but if it's lterally true, fine.

Believing in Hell (or Universalism, for that matter) isn't one of my Christian essentials. So I'm content with the "we'll see in the end" approach. If I had to bet my life savings, I'd bet that something like Universalism, or at least a broader and more inclusive understanding of what it means to be saved, is closer to the truth.

Let's start there--those are both good ones. Hell- whatever that is, and the Trinity concept.

Are these two essential beliefs? If so, what is it exactly about those two ideas is it that we must believe? Many people believe many different things about both. What makes YOUR understanding the essential belief?

 

[GodsGrace]

What are essential beliefs?

That term "essential" means very different things to different people and groups of people (denominations). What a Southern Baptist considers to be essential is different from what a Seventh Day Adventist or a Calvinist or a Preterist would insist as being fundamental or foundational belief. Ahhhh... there's the rub. It's the belief part that remains the same for ALL of them.

These individuals or groups might consider something to be essential to believe in order to fellowship with them or to be a member in good standing with them-- but there confidence and convictions remain firmly on things they believe. (tongue in cheek).

So this thread is dedicated to discussing some of the sacred cows that some people insist are these firm foundations upon which they construct their paradigms of faith. I'll propose that where it comes to beliefs that are truly essential- there are few.

Jesus taught-- "Have faith in God" (Mark 11) -and he left it pretty open-ended.

He said- "Believe in God, believe also in me." (John 14:1)

He said- "This is the work of God-- that you believe in him who He sent." (John 6:22)

What that exactly means is otherwise undefined by him. In other words, everything else is up for debate. You might not think so, but he did. In fact much of his time here was spent trying to convince people that most of the things they were so convinced of were completely wrong. Yet most of those people couldn't set aside what they believed in exchange for what he taught.

So bring your sacred cow. Let's kill it.

If we can make up our own belief system, doesn't that mean that there is no truth?

 

[Mister E]

If we can make up our own belief system, doesn't that mean that there is no truth?

Of course not. The point is that the truth is completely unaffected by your beliefs. And it will always remain so.

The truth is the truth and remain so even if you don't believe it at all. The truth remains the truth always.

 

[Runner]

If we can make up our own belief system, doesn't that mean that there is no truth?

No, absolutely not. Mister E is right on target.

I'm not talking about Postmodernism or Post-Postmodernism. I'm not talking about "What's true for me" versus "What's true for you."

The Truth is out there. There is one Truth that exists irrespective of what I believe or you believe.

However, as I suggested in my "Do we KNOW Christianity is true?" thread, the ontological Truth about metaphysical matters such as the existence of God isn't something we can objectively know in this lifetime. We can only reach convictions that aren't certain knowledge, no matter how strong those convictions may be.

It's a matter of each reaching our own convictions on the basis of our individual experiences, observations, studies, reflection and intuition, which is all that anyone can do. It isn't a matter of "making up our own belief system." It's simply a refusal to adopt someone else's belief system on the basis of their assertion of authority or their experiences, observations, etc.

That's why I like to challenge people regarding the basis of their supposed convictions. Was it parental indoctrination? The pronouncements of some other authority figure or figures? Some startling experience that you regarded as dispositive? Did you simply "adopt" the creed or statement of faith of some belief system you found appealing or that offered social or economic benefits? Those are very weak foundations for genuine convictions about matters of ultimate metaphysical Truth.

 

[Runner]

Voila, I knew I could find it:

Here is dear old Runner (previous incarnation) in 2017, asking folks to "Give Us Your Absolute Bottom-Line Christian Essentials," https://christianforums.net/threads/give-us-your-absolute-bottom-line-christian-essentials.70904/.

It goes on for seven pages, which I only skimmed, but it seems fairly worthwhile. I even gave my own (at the time) essentials in 110 words, which I'm sure I could whittle down further today. I'll bet Consecrated Life is going to be poring through this with a magnifying glass and fine-tooth comb!

I was surprised to see myself saying the same things I'm saying now, in much the same language:

In my earliest days as a Christian newbie, with Campus Crusade, I said to my wife (then my fiancé), "It would be wonderful to be as simplistic about all this as most of our fellow Crusaders are, but that's just not the way I am." I later realized that one of the big factors was that I had not been raised in a Christian home or trained to accept anything on the basis of "authority."

I have absolutely no problem with someone who is content with a Vacation Bible School understanding of Christianity and feels no need to dive deeper, as I've tried to make clear with my Fred example. I have no disdain for a Christian like Fred. (On the other hand, I do have a strong sense, here and elsewhere, that this type of Christian has disdain for, or at least fear of, my type of Christian.) My guess is that what Fred is doing is what Jesus really wants. [Fred was a hypothetical character I had invented for purposes of discussion]

Once you do decide to dive deeper, there is no bottom. If there are advantages to diving deeper, they are: (1) as you wrestle with the issues, you gradually arrive at a theology you really believe, as opposed to finding out too late that your supposed beliefs were a house of cards without a sufficient foundation to withstand life's challenges, and (2) you realize that sincere, well-educated, Spirit-filled Christians hold a wide variety of plausible, biblically supported positions on almost every issue. You are less likely to be rigidly dogmatic, unyielding and divisive about your own positions. You begin to ask, as I have here, what is really essential.

 

[GodsGrace]

Of course not. The point is that the truth is completely unaffected by your beliefs. And it will always remain so.

The truth is the truth and remain so even if you don't believe it at all. The truth remains the truth always.

Of course the truth will always be the truth.

Point is: WE don't know what the truth is if different doctrine is taught by different denominations.

 

[GodsGrace]

No, absolutely not. Mister E is right on target.

I'm not talking about Postmodernism or Post-Postmodernism. I'm not talking about "What's true for me" versus "What's true for you."

The Truth is out there. There is one Truth that exists irrespective of what I believe or you believe.

However, as I suggested in my "Do we KNOW Christianity is true?" thread, the ontological Truth about metaphysical matters such as the existence of God isn't something we can objectively know in this lifetime. We can only reach convictions that aren't certain knowledge, no matter how strong those convictions may be.

It's a matter of each reaching our own convictions on the basis of our individual experiences, observations, studies, reflection and intuition, which is all that anyone can do. It isn't a matter of "making up our own belief system." It's simply a refusal to adopt someone else's belief system on the basis of their assertion of authority or their experiences, observations, etc.

That's why I like to challenge people regarding the basis of their supposed convictions. Was it parental indoctrination? The pronouncements of some other authority figure or figures? Some startling experience that you regarded as dispositive? Did you simply "adopt" the creed or statement of faith of some belief system you found appealing or that offered social or economic benefits? Those are very weak foundations for genuine convictions about matters of ultimate metaphysical Truth.

As I just replied to Mister E,
The objective truth certainly exists.

What I'm saying is that if we don't know the truth, and everyone believes in a different truth,
then for US truth does not exist.

It's the same idea as what a famous Christian said (can't remember who):
If we accept everything,
it means we believe in nothing.

Take eternal security. We debate it ad infinitum...
One side is certainly right...
How to know which one it is?
I think I'm right,
the other poster thinks they're right.
Frankly, I'm rather sorry that we have so many denominations.
Although I hardly could become Catholic again.

 

[Mister E]

Voila, I knew I could find it:

Here is dear old Runner (previous incarnation) in 2017, asking folks to "Give Us Your Absolute Bottom-Line Christian Essentials," https://christianforums.net/threads/give-us-your-absolute-bottom-line-christian-essentials.70904/.

It goes on for seven pages, which I only skimmed, but it seems fairly worthwhile. I even gave my own (at the time) essentials in 110 words, which I'm sure I could whittle down further today. I'll bet Consecrated Life is going to be poring through this with a magnifying glass and fine-tooth comb!

I was surprised to see myself saying the same things I'm saying now, in much the same language:

Cool— I will give it a read!

 

[Mister E]

What I'm saying is that if we don't know the truth, and everyone believes in a different truth,
then for US truth does not exist.

I understand what you are saying, but it isn’t true. The truth exists whether we discover it or not. It doesn’t become non-existent because we miss it.

The ocean is full of fish. One man catches a boatload, another is completely skunked. The fish didn’t disappear for the man who caught none. They exist— the proof being the other man who caught many.

 

[Runner]

As I just replied to Mister E,
The objective truth certainly exists.

What I'm saying is that if we don't know the truth, and everyone believes in a different truth,
then for US truth does not exist.

I think we can recognize it exists but accept that we can only hold our best-informed convictions as to what it is.

It's the same idea as what a famous Christian said (can't remember who):
If we accept everything,
it means we believe in nothing.

But I don't believe in everything. I've eliminated many, many things in which I don't believe. And I definitely do believe in something - while accepting I could be wrong.

Take eternal security. We debate it ad infinitum...
One side is certainly right...
How to know which one it is?
I think I'm right,
the other poster thinks they're right.

Well, we simply don't know. We have to live according to our convictions. On this issue, I try to err on the side of what the overall thrust of the NT seems to me to be, as well as what the majority of Christians have always believed. If I'm wrong, and the other view is correct, I've lost nothing. If I'm correct, and some of them have lived as though it were irrelevant to their salvation - well, that could be a problem.

Frankly, I'm rather sorry that we have so many denominations.
Although I hardly could become Catholic again.

You - like me - might be a good candidate for the Orthodox Church. Easy for me to say since there isn't an Orthodox Church within 300 miles of me, but their theology strikes me as the most solid, and I do believe they have the strongest claim to being the One True Apostolic Church. The Reformation had a very legitimate basis insofar as the excesses of the Catholic Church were concerned, but I believe what it launched has been a disaster for Christianity. It's too bad so many people think Christianity is divided into Protestants and Catholics and scarcely realize the Orthodox Church exists.

 

[GodsGrace]

I think we can recognize it exists but accept that we can only hold our best-informed convictions as to what it is.

But I don't believe in everything. I've eliminated many, many things in which I don't believe. And I definitely do believe in something - while accepting I could be wrong.

Well, we simply don't know. We have to live according to our convictions. On this issue, I try to err on the side of what the overall thrust of the NT seems to me to be, as well as what the majority of Christians have always believed. If I'm wrong, and the other view is correct, I've lost nothing. If I'm correct, and some of them have lived as though it were irrelevant to their salvation - well, that could be a problem.

You - like me - might be a good candidate for the Orthodox Church. Easy for me to say since there isn't an Orthodox Church within 300 miles of me, but their theology strikes me as the most solid, and I do believe they have the strongest claim to being the One True Apostolic Church. The Reformation had a very legitimate basis insofar as the excesses of the Catholic Church were concerned, but I believe what it launched has been a disaster for Christianity. It's too bad so many people think Christianity is divided into Protestants and Catholics and scarcely realize the Orthodox Church exists.

Well Runner,
I agree with you about everything.
For now, that is!
As to the Orthodox church, it didn't change as the Catholic Church did after the schism.
There is one about 45 minutes from my home, but I hear the service is 2 hours or more long.
I don't know if I can stay put in one place that long anymore...

 

[Runner]

Well Runner,
I agree with you about everything.
For now, that is!
As to the Orthodox church, it didn't change as the Catholic Church did after the schism.
There is one about 45 minutes from my home, but I hear the service is 2 hours or more long.
I don't know if I can stay put in one place that long anymore...

My wife tried to sit through a couple of services in Belarus. She said the smoke from the censers was so overwhelming she simply couldn't take it. So I'm sort of an "Orthodox sympathizer" in absentia without being dogmatic about it. As I've mentioned before, there is also a branch of Protestantism called "paleo-orthodoxy," which has nothing directly to do with Orthodoxy but does rely heavily on the early church Fathers. The late Thomas C. Oden was a leading exponent, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_C._Oden.

 

[Mister E]

You - like me - might be a good candidate for the Orthodox Church.

I'm searching for an unorthodox Bible-believing Church.

I been to St. Herman's church, said my religious vows
I've sucked the milk out of a thousand cows
I got the pork chops, she got the pie
She ain't no angel and neither am I

Herman of Alaska - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[GodsGrace]

My wife tried to sit through a couple of services in Belarus. She said the smoke from the censers was so overwhelming she simply couldn't take it. So I'm sort of an "Orthodox sympathizer" in absentia without being dogmatic about it. As I've mentioned before, there is also a branch of Protestantism called "paleo-orthodoxy," which has nothing directly to do with Orthodoxy but does rely heavily on the early church Fathers. The late Thomas C. Oden was a leading exponent, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_C._Oden.

I like to read and adhere to the ECFs.
Some of them knew the Apostles themselves, like Ignatius of Antioch for example.
I think that if they didn't know what Jesus taught, then who does?
Also, I feel that Jesus spoke very clearly and was easy to understand.
Paul complicated it a little, but basically he's also saying the same...
just that some read only the parts they like.
Will be reading the link...

 

[GodsGrace]

Runner

Love this part from the link...

Oden became a proponent of paleo-orthodoxy, an approach to theology that often relies on patristic sources. He published a series of books that he said are tools for promoting "classical Christianity". Oden suggested that Christians need to rely upon the wisdom of the historical Church, particularly the early Church, rather than on modern scholarship and theology, which is often, in his view, tainted by political agendas.

You should start a thread on this.

 

[GodsGrace]

I'm searching for an unorthodox Bible-believing Church.

I been to St. Herman's church, said my religious vows
I've sucked the milk out of a thousand cows
I got the pork chops, she got the pie
She ain't no angel and neither am I

Herman of Alaska - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There's plenty.
One church here believes a person could be saved after death.
Imagine a person dies...
he wakes up and Jesus is standing in front of him.
Jesus asks him if he'd like to be saved and go to heaven....
the guy says NO....

Then there's the Word of Faith movement.
God as Santa Claus.
Ask what you want...if you've been good you'll get it.
If you don't get it, it means you've not been good, or don't have enough faith.

Then there's the reformed church.
It believes basically what John Calvin taught but they're using a softer compilation of doctrine known as the WCF.
Westminster Confession of Faith.
They believe it's God that does the choosing as to who shall be saved and who shant. (shant?)
Why Jesus wasted His time for over 3 years, I just don't understand.

The Assembly of God church is a good church.
But boy, if you don't speak in tongues it means you don't have the Holy Spirit.

There must be more...
But I forget my point.

 

[Runner]

Runner

Love this part from the link...

Oden became a proponent of paleo-orthodoxy, an approach to theology that often relies on patristic sources. He published a series of books that he said are tools for promoting "classical Christianity". Oden suggested that Christians need to rely upon the wisdom of the historical Church, particularly the early Church, rather than on modern scholarship and theology, which is often, in his view, tainted by political agendas.

You should start a thread on this.

I read his systematic theology and thought it was excellent. The only problem is, literally every sentence is followed by a parenthetical reference to one or more of the patristic sources on which he relied. Here it is: https://www.amazon.com/Classic-Christianity-Systematic-Thomas-Oden. (Oops. that doesn't work. Here's the whole enchilada: https://www.amazon.com/Classic-Chri...t=&hvlocphy=9030318&hvtargid=pla-523738570945.)

I don't know what I'd say in a thread. It's really just a matter of whether you regard the Apostolic and Early Church Fathers as authoritative, which the Orthodox Church certainly does. Oden relies on some of the giants of the Middle Ages and Reformation, but he seemed very solid to me.

That's one nice thing about the Orthodox - all theology is measured by its consistency with the Bible and early Fathers. There are some radical Orthodox theologians, but they are on the fringes and the church doesn't seem to have the sort of dissension as the Catholics.

 

[GodsGrace]

I read his systematic theology and thought it was excellent. The only problem is, literally every sentence is followed by a parenthetical reference to one or more of the patristic sources on which he relied. Here it is: https://www.amazon.com/Classic-Christianity-Systematic-Thomas-Oden. (Oops. that doesn't work. Here's the whole enchilada: https://www.amazon.com/Classic-Chri...t=&hvlocphy=9030318&hvtargid=pla-523738570945.)

I don't know what I'd say in a thread. It's really just a matter of whether you regard the Apostolic and Early Church Fathers as authoritative, which the Orthodox Church certainly does. Oden relies on some of the giants of the Middle Ages and Reformation, but he seemed very solid to me.

That's one nice thing about the Orthodox - all theology is measured by its consistency with the Bible and early Fathers. There are some radical Orthodox theologians, but they are on the fringes and the church doesn't seem to have the sort of dissension as the Catholics.

Thanks. I'll get it if it's avx here in English.
Or my brother could bring it to me in Sept.

I DO regard the ECFs, and of course the Apostolic Fathers, as authoratative.
I don't have the entire library of their writings, but I have a book titled

A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs
David W. Bercot
Hendrickson Publishers

sub: A reference guide to more than 700 topics discussed by the EDFs

I like the Didache too. It's pretty much been determined that the dating is about 90AD.
It was thought in the past that it might go to 120AD.
I'm sorry it doesn't describe more than it does.

Didache

https://legacyicons.com/content/didache.pdf

 

[GodsGrace]

Runner

Just got the Oden book from amazon.it
Is arriving on Tuesday.