Protestants: What are the "Basics" that all Non-Catholic Christians agree on? And who determines what the "basics" are?

[ConfusedTim]

I have of often wondered about this list of “basics” that all Christians agree on.

You would think a small matter like salvation and how we are saved would be one of these “basics”. But it would appear not. For example the local minister in the Episcopal church teaches that baptism with water is essential and therefore encourages the baptism of children. However the local non denomination evangelical church teach that you have to make a personal commitment and that baptism is merely symbolic.

The local Wesleyn church believes that salvation can be lost whereas the local Pentecostal church says that once you have made a personal commitment to Jesus you cannot lose salvation!

If the “basics” or “essentials” that all Christians believe do not include how we are saved then clearly the list is useless.

 

[PRmerger]

CHe maintained that Christianity was not a religion, it was a relationship with God - a sentiment with which I agree.

Protector.

This makes no sense. Religion comes from the Latin word religare, which means relationship. Religare: to bind; to tie; bind, tie, fasten–to be tied to another in a relationship.

Essentially what you are saying, then is the nonsensical “Christianity is not a a relationship, it was a relationship with God.”

 

[Cat]

I have of often wondered about this list of “basics” that all Christians agree on.

You would think a small matter like salvation and how we are saved would be one of these “basics”. But it would appear not. For example the local minister in the Episcopal church teaches that baptism with water is essential and therefore encourages the baptism of children. However the local non denomination evangelical church teach that you have to make a personal commitment and that baptism is merely symbolic.

The local Wesleyn church believes that salvation can be lost whereas the local Pentecostal church says that once you have made a personal commitment to Jesus you cannot lose salvation!

If the “basics” or “essentials” that all Christians believe do not include how we are saved then clearly the list is useless.

Once again, here is the list of Five Fundamentals of the Christian Faith, which Catholics and Protestants agree with:

1. Inerrancy of the Scriptures
2. Virgin birth and Deity of Jesus Christ
3. Substitutionary Atonement by God’s Grace through faith.
4. Bodily Resurrection of Jesus
5. Authenticity of the Miracles of Jesus, OR The Second Coming of Jesus (depends on which denomination–Catholics believe in both, and most but not all Protestant, denominations believe in both, but some only believe in one of these).

Take a look at #3. Pretty much all Christians agree that it is through our faith in Jesus Christ’s sacrifice that we have any hope of salvation.

In other words, none of the Christian churches teach that salvation is through a work of man. It is through a work of Jesus Christ, the Lord.

Now the specifics about how that faith actually works in real life are different in each Christian church.

E.g., the Catholic Church and also many Protestant denominations teach that there must be some kind of “action” that occurs as a result of that faith; in most cases, there is a longing for holiness and steps taken to achieve that holiness. Catholics teach that human beings are capable of being holy and therefore “add our holiness to the deposit of merit.” Calvinists (Reformed, Presbyterian) teach that humans are not capable of being holy and therefore we can add absolutely nothing to what Jesus has done and any holiness we have is actually Christ’s holiness.

Two different teachings, but the basic teaching is still there–we are saved through faith in Jesus Christ. HE is the One Who has made salvation possible.

If they are grilled, many Christians, Catholic and Protestant, even those who are quite rigid in their beliefs, will agree that ultimately, it will be through our faith in Jesus Christ that we are saved, and that as humans, we cannot say that a person is NOT saved because of failure to adhere to certain beliefs and/or practices.

Would any Catholic here state with certainty that a Protestant who has faith in Jesus Christ has no hope of salvation? Would any Protestant here state with certainty that a Catholic who has faith in Jesus Christ has no hope of salvation?

I would never make such a statement.

So in conclusion, yes, there is agreement among Christians on the issue of salvation–salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ. What we disagree on is what we DO with that faith.

 

[PRmerger]

Once again, here is the list of Five Fundamentals of the Christian Faith, which Catholics and Protestants agree with:

1. Inerrancy of the Scriptures
2. Virgin birth and Deity of Jesus Christ
3. Substitutionary Atonement by God’s Grace through faith.
4. Bodily Resurrection of Jesus
5. Authenticity of the Miracles of Jesus, OR The Second Coming of Jesus (depends on which denomination–Catholics believe in both, and most but not all Protestant, denominations believe in both, but some only believe in one of these).

Take a look at #3. Pretty much all Christians agree that it is through our faith in Jesus Christ’s sacrifice that we have any hope of salvation.

In other words, none of the Christian churches teach that salvation is through a work of man. It is through a work of Jesus Christ, the Lord.

Now the specifics about how that faith actually works in real life are different in each Christian church.

E.g., the Catholic Church and also many Protestant denominations teach that there must be some kind of “action” that occurs as a result of that faith; in most cases, there is a longing for holiness and steps taken to achieve that holiness. Catholics teach that human beings are capable of being holy and therefore “add our holiness to the deposit of merit.” Calvinists (Reformed, Presbyterian) teach that humans are not capable of being holy and therefore we can add absolutely nothing to what Jesus has done and any holiness we have is actually Christ’s holiness.

Two different teachings, but the basic teaching is still there–we are saved through faith in Jesus Christ. HE is the One Who has made salvation possible.

If they are grilled, many Christians, Catholic and Protestant, even those who are quite rigid in their beliefs, will agree that ultimately, it will be through our faith in Jesus Christ that we are saved, and that as humans, we cannot say that a person is NOT saved because of failure to adhere to certain beliefs and/or practices.

Would any Catholic here state with certainty that a Protestant who has faith in Jesus Christ has no hope of salvation? Would any Protestant here state with certainty that a Catholic who has faith in Jesus Christ has no hope of salvation?

I would never make such a statement.

So in conclusion, yes, there is agreement among Christians on the issue of salvation–salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ. What we disagree on is what we DO with that faith.

Cat, you have provided 5 theological doctrines on which most non-Catholic Christians can agree to…however, the question remains: are these the Basics? And how does one discern whether something is a basic belief vs a non-essential?

The Catholic answer is, of course, that the Church guides us in determining what’s a basic and what’s a non-essential belief.

However, non-Catholic Christians, esp. those who subscribe to SS, cannot use any Scripture verses to discern whether a concept is basic or not.

For example is it a “basic” belief that there is only One God? And that he is the Creator?

What about the forgiveness of sins? Is that also not a basic on which we must all agree?

And that God is love? Is that also not a basic on which we must all agree?

And that we must feed the poor and clothe the naked? Is that also not a basic on which we must all agree?

And that baptism now saves us? Is that not a also a basic on which we must all agree?

And that we must we his flesh and drink his blood? Is that also not a basic on which we must all agree?

 

[ConfusedTim]

Cat -if there ever was such a thing as the “basics” then surely it would contain an agreed way for us to be SAVED. What you have provided is a list of points that most Christians may not argue over but at the end of the day it is a very limited sub set of the Gospel.

With regard to your point about having faith in Jesus being enough - I agree. The only caveat is that the person who has faith has not rejected the catholic church I.e. They know or should know that the catholic church is what Jesus founded and expected all Christians to be part if it’s body.

 

[ConfusedTim]

Cat -if there ever was such a thing as the “basics” then surely it would contain an agreed way for us to be SAVED. What you have provided is a “man made” (not inspired) list of points that most Christians may not argue over but at the end of the day it is a very limited sub set of the Gospel.

With regard to your point about having faith in Jesus being enough - I agree. The only caveat is that the person who has faith has not rejected the catholic church I.e. They know or should know that the catholic church is what Jesus founded and expected all Christians to be part if it’s body.

 

[Protector]

PRmerger;8481061]This makes no sense. Religion comes from the Latin word religare, which means relationship. Religare: to bind; to tie; bind, tie, fasten–to be tied to another in a relationship.
Essentially what you are saying, then is the nonsensical “Christianity is not a a relationship, it was a relationship with God.”

Hello again PR. Isn’t it amazing how a one-liner can often evoke more response than a 3-page treatise? When you break it down to its’ basics of course “religion” is everything that you have said above. However, the “religion” that Pastor Thieme is talking about is the multitudinous, multifarious, mishmash of multi-lingual mumbo-jumbo that manages to draw disciples away from the faith of Jesus.

To paraphrase another poster, “what is the point of a “religion” that does not have a Salvation teaching?” Pastor Thieme’s reference to “religion” is as prophesied in the following verses,

“But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction.” (2 Peter 2:1 D-R)

“Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils,” (1 Tim. 4:1 D-R)

“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” (1 John 2:19 KJV )

Protector.

 

[Cat]

Cat, you have provided 5 theological doctrines on which most non-Catholic Christians can agree to…however, the question remains: are these the Basics? And how does one discern whether something is a basic belief vs a non-essential?

The Catholic answer is, of course, that the Church guides us in determining what’s a basic and what’s a non-essential belief.

However, non-Catholic Christians, esp. those who subscribe to SS, cannot use any Scripture verses to discern whether a concept is basic or not.

For example is it a “basic” belief that there is only One God? And that he is the Creator?

What about the forgiveness of sins? Is that also not a basic on which we must all agree?

And that God is love? Is that also not a basic on which we must all agree?

And that we must feed the poor and clothe the naked? Is that also not a basic on which we must all agree?

And that baptism now saves us? Is that not a also a basic on which we must all agree?

And that we must we his flesh and drink his blood? Is that also not a basic on which we must all agree?

These are basics of Christianity, but they are not fundamentals of Christianity.

One God? There are still quite a few Christians who believe that there are three Gods, because they have an improper understanding of the Trinity. This incorrect belief does not make them non-Christian. And God does not reject people who are baptized just because they have an imcomplete or improper understanding of Who He is.

Creator? There are plenty of Christians who are struggling with God’s role in origins. And there are plenty of non-Christians who believe that the universe was “created” by a “god” or a “force.” Again, if we have an improper understanding of Who God is, that does not negate our Christianity. If that were the case, then MANY Catholics would not be Christians because they do not understand or believe that the Sacred Host is Jesus Christ, True God, Truly Present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, in the Mass and in the Tabernacle.

Forgiveness of sins? Again, there are many Catholics who would lose their Christianity because they cannot believe in or accept God’s forgiveness for their sins, and they either continue in their sins believing that they are unforgiven, or they wallow in guilt over sins that have been forgiven in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

There are many religions that teach that “God” is love. There are many Christians who have experienced tragedy who hold onto a belief, out of their own grief and bitterness, that God is NOT love at all, but that He is a capricious tyrant Who ignores human pleas for help. Again, our flawed understanding of God does not negate our Christianity. I personally believe that God loves those who reject Him because of personal tragedy, and that He is walking close to them to help them return to Him.

There are many many religions, philosophies, and organizations that teach that humans must feed the poor and cloth the naked. This is not an exclusive fundamental of Christianity. In fact, many non-Christian organizations do quite a good job of helping those who are in trouble.

Eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood is a practice, not a fundamental of Christianity. The Catechism states that those who are BAPTIZED are Christians, including non-Catholics. Young Catholic children are considered Christians even though they do not participate in Holy Communion. There are still some Catholics who, for various reasons, do not receive Christ in Holy Communion (marriage situations, living in mortal sin and unwilling to repent, etc.). They are still Christians.

The Five Fundamentals are actually quite intriguing because they state those things that make Christianity unique from all other religions.

It is a Christian belief that our Scriptures are inerrant. If a person is a Christian and believes that the Scriptures are flawed, then he/she will have a difficult time with all of Christianity, because the Scriptures do contain all that we need to know to become Christians and live a Christian life. The person who does not accept that the Scriptures are inerrant will not be able to discern which things in the Scriptures are correct and which things are wrong, and that means that NONE of the Bible can be trusted, including the “Catholic” parts of the Bible (e.g., John 6)

Virgin Birth and Deity of Jesus Christ–this is absolutely central. Christians believe that Jesus is God, born miraculously of a virgin. Other religions do NOT believe that Jesus is God, but just a man.

Substitutionary Atonement. The entire Bible is about this, Old and New Testaments. The entire Mass is about this–it is the Re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, in which He became our Substitute on the Cross, and took our sins upon Himself, and in so doing, made it possible for us to be redeemed. This is what Christians believe. If someone does not believe in the Sacrifice of the Lord Jesus, then they are not believing in Christianity.

The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus makes Christianity unique. NO other religion teaches that their leader rose from the dead in His/Her Body, and remains in a human body still. There are religions that teach that their leader is a spirit in heaven or nirvana or nothingness, and that we can communicate with their leader through prayer, meditation ,etc. But NO OTHER RELIGION other than Christianity teaches a BODILY resurrection of their leader. The resurrection of Jesus Christ, witnessed by several hundred people and written about in the Christian Scriptures and in other un-canonical writings, is the proof that Jesus is God.

Authenticity of the miracles and/or the Second Coming. I think this is the only Fundamental that could be a little wimpy.

Have to go to work now. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[joe370]

PRmerger;8481449]Cat, you have provided 5 theological doctrines on which most non-Catholic Christians can agree to…however, the question remains: are these the Basics? And how does one discern whether something is a basic belief vs a non-essential?

Well, the bible doesn’t work for discerning whether something is a basic belief vs a non-essential, so it must be the church founded by God. After all, discerning whether something is a basic belief vs a non-essential was, and still is, in my opinion, the job of the CC. As everyone here knows, it wasn’t until the man-made tradition, sola scriptura appeared in the 16th century that an alternative was posited. SS makes no since to me. SS itself is not one of the “basics” of Christianity for SS is found nowhere is sacred scripture or sacred tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

Hello again PR. Isn’t it amazing how a one-liner can often evoke more response than a 3-page treatise? When you break it down to its’ basics of course “religion” is everything that you have said above. However, the “religion” that Pastor Thieme is talking about is the multitudinous, multifarious, mishmash of multi-lingual mumbo-jumbo that manages to draw disciples away from the faith of Jesus.

Well, then, on this we are agreed!

 

[PRmerger]

These are basics of Christianity, but they are not fundamentals of Christianity.

Oh, basics, schmasics. Fundamentals, schmundamentals.

This is arbitrary nomenclature you’re assigning to theological concepts, Cat.

One God? There are still quite a few Christians who believe that there are three Gods, because they have an improper understanding of the Trinity. This incorrect belief does not make them non-Christian.

If someone believes there are 3 Gods then he cannot be a Christian.
There is not a single Christian, even with a deficient understanding of the Trinity, who ought to be proclaiming, “I believe there are 3 gods and I am a Christian!”

And God does not reject people who are baptized just because they have an imcomplete or improper understanding of Who He is.

Of course.

Creator? There are plenty of Christians who are struggling with God’s role in origins.

Ok.

But are you saying that someone can be a Christian and proclaim, “I don’t believe God created the World, and I am a Christian!”

And there are plenty of non-Christians who believe that the universe was “created” by a “god” or a “force.”

Well, then, as you state above, that makes them non-Christians. We are talking about Christians here, are we not?

Forgiveness of sins? Again, there are many Catholics who would lose their Christianity because they cannot believe in or accept God’s forgiveness for their sins, and they either continue in their sins believing that they are unforgiven, or they wallow in guilt over sins that have been forgiven in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Ok.

But surely you’re not saying that Christianity allows a believer to proclaim, “God does not forgive sins! And I am a Christian!”

There are many religions that teach that “God” is love. There are many Christians who have experienced tragedy who hold onto a belief, out of their own grief and bitterness, that God is NOT love at all, but that He is a capricious tyrant Who ignores human pleas for help.

Ok.

But surely you’re not saying that Christianity allows a believer to proclaim, “God is not love, and I am a Christian!”

Again, our flawed understanding of God does not negate our Christianity.

Of course. Who here is saying that?

I personally believe that God loves those who reject Him because of personal tragedy, and that He is walking close to them to help them return to Him.

Again, of course. But who here is saying anything contrary to that?

There are many many religions, philosophies, and organizations that teach that humans must feed the poor and cloth the naked. This is not an exclusive fundamental of Christianity. In fact, many non-Christian organizations do quite a good job of helping those who are in trouble.

But surely you’re not saying that someone can say, “I don’t believe that God desires us to feed the poor, and I am a Christian!”

Eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood is a practice, not a fundamental of Christianity.

Ok. But believing that we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood is a fundamental of Catholicism.

The Catechism states that those who are BAPTIZED are Christians, including non-Catholics. Young Catholic children are considered Christians even though they do not participate in Holy Communion. There are still some Catholics who, for various reasons, do not receive Christ in Holy Communion (marriage situations, living in mortal sin and unwilling to repent, etc.). They are still Christians…

Of course. Who here is saying that they are not?

The Five Fundamentals are actually quite intriguing because they state those things that make Christianity unique from all other religions.

Well, I think we must be having 2 totally different discussions.

I wasn’t talking about what makes Christianity different from other religions. I was pointing out that non-Catholic Christians can’t even really agree on what they agree on.

 

[Protector]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protector
Hello again PR. Isn’t it amazing how a one-liner can often evoke more response than a 3-page treatise? When you break it down to its’ basics of course “religion” is everything that you have said above. However, the “religion” that Pastor Thieme is talking about is the multitudinous, multifarious, mishmash of multi-lingual mumbo-jumbo that manages to draw disciples away from the faith of Jesus.

PRmerger;8486355] Well, then, on this we are agreed!

PR, I thank you. I hope that this will be the first of many agreeable conversations.

Protect.

 

[damon2salvatore]

Nice post, Thanks for share this post…

---

Blue Bloods Season 2 Episode 5

 

[LutheranSemGuy]

I don’t like the form of the question, since Protestants vary greatly. It is more fair to group by denominational family (Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, etc)

However, to try to answer the question, I’d say:

1. Sola Scriptura (though not inerrancy. This is how you get conservative vs liberal Protestants)
2. Justification by faith alone
3. priesthood of all believers (with the exception of the Episcopalian/Anglicans. They have priests)
4. The three Ecumenical Creeds (Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian)

Other than that, I believe each family has a set of writings that set forth their doctrines, such as the Lutheran Book of Concord. However, disagreements can cause splits within each family. For example, I know of 8 Lutheran denominations in the U.S. alone.

 

[Izdaari]

I don’t remember whether I’ve posted on this thread or not.

However, I think C.S. Lewis did an admirable job of collecting the basics of the Christian faith that nearly all Christians, whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox, can agree on in his excellent little book, Mere Christianity. Of course, there are less orthodox variants of Christianity that won’t agree, but I’d classify those as cults or heresies.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t remember whether I’ve posted on this thread or not.

However, I think C.S. Lewis did an admirable job of collecting the basics of the Christian faith that nearly all Christians, whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox, can agree on in his excellent little book, Mere Christianity. Of course, there are less orthodox variants of Christianity that won’t agree, but I’d classify those as cults or heresies.

Did he base these on Scripture telling him that these are essentials, or are these only his opinion? (I don’t think it does, and thus this is a non-Scriptural tradition that Lewis is proposing.)

And what happens when another Protestant disagrees with Lewis’ list of essentials? As Scripture doesn’t tell us what these essentials are, we get no consensus.

 

[Izdaari]

Did he base these on Scripture telling him that these are essentials, or are these only his opinion? (I don’t think it does, and thus this is a non-Scriptural tradition that Lewis is proposing.)

And what happens when another Protestant disagrees with Lewis’ list of essentials? As Scripture doesn’t tell us what these essentials are, we get no consensus.

Are you familiar with Lewis’ biography and work? He was kinda different. He was an Anglican who came close to becoming Catholic, thanks largely to the influence of his good friend, J.R.R. Tolkien… but he was not willing to consent in advance to doctrine that had not yet been formulated. I have that same reservation myself, among others.

He said his approach in that book was not deciding based on Scripture what was essential, but simply taking whatever it was that Christians of all traditions have historically agreed on and writing that down. I think he came very close to succeeding in that intention.

 

[PRmerger]

Are you familiar with Lewis’ biography and work?

Indeed, I am. His books are only second to books by Peter Kreeft on my non-fiction bookshelf.

He was kinda different. He was an Anglican who came close to becoming Catholic, thanks largely to the influence of his good friend, J.R.R. Tolkien… but he was not willing to consent in advance to doctrine that had not yet been formulated. I have that same reservation myself, among others.

Huh?

Have I as a Catholic consented to doctrine that has not yet been formulated?

He said his approach in that book was not deciding based on Scripture what was essential, but simply taking whatever it was that Christians of all traditions have historically agreed on and writing that down. I think he came very close to succeeding in that intention.

Fair enough. Then it’s fair to say that Lewis was *not *Sola Scriptura, and anyone who assents to the Mere Christianity set of essentials is also not Sola Scriptura, right?

 

[Izdaari]

Indeed, I am. His books are only second to books by Peter Kreeft on my non-fiction bookshelf.

Huh?

Have I as a Catholic consented to doctrine that has not yet been formulated?

Fair enough. Then it’s fair to say that Lewis was *not *Sola Scriptura, and anyone who assents to the Mere Christianity set of essentials is also not Sola Scriptura, right?

I like Peter Kreeft too.

Well, that’s what Lewis said, as to why he couldn’t become Catholic. As a Catholic you are sort of committed to assenting to what the Church teaches, even if they change things. Or have I misunderstood that?

Right, I agree Lewis was not Sola Scriptura. I don’t claim to be Sola Scriptura myself, but rather Prima Scriptura in a Wesleyan kind of way.

 

[PRmerger]

I like Peter Kreeft too.

Well, that’s what Lewis said, as to why he couldn’t become Catholic. As a Catholic you are sort of committed to assenting to what the Church teaches, even if they change things. Or have I misunderstood that?

All that has been revealed has been revealed, Izdaari. I need only assent as a Catholic to a better understanding of doctrine as it develops.

Right, I agree Lewis was not Sola Scriptura. I don’t claim to be Sola Scriptura myself, but rather Prima Scriptura in a Wesleyan kind of way.

Okay. I don’t really know what that means. Don’t know what "Wesleyan"means or, really, what “Prima Scriptura” is… but how does Prima Scriptura tell you what’s an essential doctrine and what’s not?