Christian Non-Negotialbles?

I believe we see them in Eph 4:4-6. These are what it takes to be a Christian: There is only one body (of believers), one Holy Spirit who brings the call of one hope (the gospel truth), one Lord (Jesus Christ), one faith (trust in Him), one baptism (regeneration/rebirth), one God and Father of all Who is above all, through all, and in you all (which seems to mean "all" of the "one body").

All above that is "unity of the faith and knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man" (4:13) or what we call "Christian growth."

As you see, I added more because that is what gives us "unity in the Spirit," 4:3. You're not really a Christian without it.

skypair

 

Yes - They have to actually claim to "believe the Bible" rather than constantly trying to re-write and water it down to fit man's preferences.

So in the case you give of the Trinity - They have to claim to have found the Trinity Doctrine IN scripture. (which can be done with some work) Simply believing a popular idea is NOT Christianity. If anything the first century NT saints were "UNpopular".

 

For creedal churches this is always an easy question to answer. Subscription to the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds and to a slightly lesser extant the Athenasian Creed. Now for salvation althat is need is faith in Christ. I don't expect new Christians to understand or even hold to the creeds right away that will come with time.

 

Christian Non-Negotialbles?

Does this have anything to do with the offeing plate?

I do not hold the word trinity, nor language such as "three persons, one substance" as something one must affirm to be Christian, because scripture does not say it that way. I do think one should affirm Jesus as The Word made flesh, that he is One with the Father, that the Spirit-- which teaches, comforts, and can be grieved by us-- is "given" to every believer, and that by one spirit have we all been baptized. But these phrases-- not 'trinity', 'three-in-one', et al-- are the scriptural ones. And I said the word "should" because it's also not a requirement that one be literate to be a Christian.

But also, if a Christian must have every doctrine perfect, I don't think there is such a person as a Christian.

 

I agree that the two you have given are critical.

However, on the subject of the efficacy of Christ's death, I believe that this statement is possibly to broad and too ill-defined to be of use. Some who call themselves Christian would say they agree that Christ's death is efficacious, but not necessarily sufficient alone for our salvation. They would require works for salvation as well. I think the reformers are right to say that salvation is "by grace alone" and "through faith alone".

Also, if we are going to define the irreducible minimum as to what makes a group Christian, there must be agreement as to our source for forming that definition. The reformers recognized that source as "scripture alone". A group that holds to another source or holds open the possibility of another source is either not truly Christian now or apt to cease being truly Christian in the future.

 

Cowboymatt: "Let me clarify my point a bit...what I am getting at is how do we tell if a group of believers is Christian or not? Individual beleivers is one thing; only God can be their judge. But can't we and shouldn't we try to determine if sects, cults, churches, etc are Christian? How can we do this?"


Groups can't be Christian. Only individuals can be. Even if a group's doctrines meet your litmus test what good does it do? If you think you are going to take on a group and change them, go ahead. I am going to deal with individuals.

 

trustitl is right. The "church" is not made up of VISIBLE members but the "church" is INVISIBLE to the naked eye -- there are members who believe on Christ in many of these "groups." They have merely been deluded or in the case of wives, led by errant "spiritual heads." I know of a former Baptist woman who nevertheless submits to her Seventh Day Adventist husband.

Do I think we can identify false Christianity! Absolutely! But don't try to do the reverse -- claim that folks who believe on Christ are not saved because of their affiliations.

skypair

 

Luther said (and my quote may be inexact) "Except I am persuaded by scripture and plain reason...." The doctrines of the Trinity and salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone are the results of scripture and plain reason, not scripture and tradition. Again, Luther, "Popes and councils (i.e. tradition) have all been wrong...."

 

Good question -- but I agree with Chemnitz --- look to the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed.

 

Even Luther couldn’t bring himself to fully support sola scriptura. As Luther translated the bible into German, Luther, as a safeguard, included footnotes…the first biblical commentary.

InXC
-

 

That is a very good point Agnus_Dei. If scripture is indeed sufficient, shouldn't one therefore conclude that any sort of biblical commentary is not only unnecessary but also contradictory to a true 'sola scriptura' doctrine?

 

HP: My answer would be an emphatic no. Certainly there are many truths that we receive from Scripture alone, but that is not the position of those claiming sola scriptura as I understand them.

It is impossible in reality for anyone to hold such a position across the board on all issues. It is a mere sophism, having the ring of truth but practically and in realty impossible to conceive or practice. God grants to men intuitive truth very early in life without which much truth even in Scripture could not be affirmed or denied.