What are The fundamentals of Christianity That All Christians Agree With?

[Siddhartha]

Actually, I have heard at least two people who claim to be Christian who have had doubts.

I think we have to retrench even further: is there anyone who claims to be Christian who does not believe in the teachings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth? (Well, at least as interpreted by the believer, anyway)

Yes, there are Christian agnostics, who doubt whether God exists.

There are Christian atheists, who don’t believe in God at all.

Yet, both Christian agnostics and Christian atheists believe that Christ existed and they try to follow Christ teachings.

If there are people who even doubt whether Jesus Christ even lived on earth, and yet they continue to follow the teachings attributed to Christ, then they are still Christian, since they follow the teachings.

So, according to you, a Christian is someone who tries to follow, or successfully follows, the teachings attributed to Jesus Christ.

 

[dianaiad]

IN MY OPINION: What all of the above proves is that if you give a Bible to 50 different people and ask them to interpret it then you will get 50 different interpretations; there is a need for a central authority to interpret Scripture correctly for all Christians; otherwise you get ‘Pick ‘n’ Mix’ Christianity.

But, of course that authority exists already. It is The Magisterium of The Roman Catholic Church with The Pope as Chairman in succession to The Apostle Saint Peter.

Peter was given a mandate as Leader of the Church in Mathew 16:18-19: ‘…Thou art Peter and on this ROCK I will build my Church and the gates of the underworld will never hold out against it and I will give unto thee the KEYS of The Kingdom of Heaven and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven…’ The important words here: ROCK: the name given by Jesus to Peter was ‘Cephas’ which means rock; KEYS: most cities in ancient times had walls and a main gate to prevent invasion; anyone given the Key to that gate was, indeed, very special.

I understand that this is your opinion. The problem, however, is that out of 2.1 billion Christians in the world, less than half are Catholic. Are you going to claim that the other half are not Christian? The Vatican would disagree with you…

 

[dianaiad]

If Esoteric Christianity is branch of Christianity, then yes, there are groups that deny the existence of Jesus, but endorse the teachings attributed to Jesus.(They usually are more aligned with a variant of the Perennial Philosophy, rather than strictly Christian theology.)

“Identify with”, or “aspire to identify with”. If the latter, there are several medieval examples. (This position is also found in mystics. They’d like to be Christian, but they feel that they are so far from God, and Christian living that the best they feel they can achieve is to aspire to a belief in Christianity.)

One of the branches of Pentecostal Christianity ignores Jesus as God. (I’ve forgotten which one it is, but it is one of the branches that is not modalist.)

jonathon

You are right to point these folks out…which is why I ratcheted back the ‘basic’ beliefs to as basic and universal as I possibly could. You have given me examples of people who have very ‘outlier’ type beliefs, but still share THOSE particular ones. Can you think of another one that everybody who calls him/herself a Christian would share with everybody else who does?

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, there are Christian agnostics, who doubt whether God exists.

There are Christian atheists, who don’t believe in God at all.

But they do like the teachings attributed to Jesus. Remember, I didn’t say that they all believed in Jesus Christ…in His physical existence, or that He is divine…just that they believe in the teachings attributed to Him.

Yet, both Christian agnostics and Christian atheists believe that Christ existed and they try to follow Christ teachings.

If there are people who even doubt whether Jesus Christ even lived on earth, and yet they continue to follow the teachings attributed to Christ, then they are still Christian, since they follow the teachings.

So, according to you, a Christian is someone who tries to follow, or successfully follows, the teachings attributed to Jesus Christ.

I would put that in the definition, personally…but what about the guy who doesn’t, but merely thinks he should follow them? Or that they are merely good ideas? There are a great many of those, who give passing mention to those teachings. However, I think that the additional requirement…that he claim the name, is important. Doing so is a statement that he thinks that those teachings are worth following, more than other systems of belief, and that he intends to try…or at least present himself as someone who intends to try.

 

[jblake]

dianaiad;:

However, I think that the additional requirement…that he claim the name, is important. Doing so is a statement that he thinks that those teachings are worth following, more than other systems of belief, and that he intends to try…or at least present himself as someone who intends to try.

Martin Palmer postulates that the worship of Kwan Yin originated from Marian Devotion by early Christians in Southern and Eastern Asia.
Would the 景教 not be Christians, because they didn’t call themselves Christian?

jonathon

 

[dianaiad]

Martin Palmer postulates that the worship of Kwan Yin originated from Marian Devotion by early Christians in Southern and Eastern Asia.
Would the 景教 not be Christians, because they didn’t call themselves Christian?

jonathon

Now I would say that they weren’t, m’self. Christians have a bad habit of trying to push each other OUT of the system; why start forcing people INTO it that don’t claim it?

 

[peakpilgrim]

I understand that this is your opinion. The problem, however, is that out of 2.1 billion Christians in the world, less than half are Catholic. Are you going to claim that the other half are not Christian? The Vatican would disagree with you…

No I’m not saying this at all. The Pope says that non-Catholics are Christians, also, though their worship is somewhat deficient. I have, absolutely, no reason to disagree with that.

For non-Christians there is the policy of Baptism of Desire: Muslims, Jews etc.

“I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd” (John 10:16).

“Work out your own salvation in fear and trembling; for God is at work in you” (Phil. 2:12–13).

‘…who will have all men to be saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth…’ (1 Tim 2:4)
This a full 1500 years before The Gospel was declared in The Americas.

No: what I mean is that it is just for the reason of interpreting Scripture correctly that The Pope is required.

You can strip out the politics and the fact that many Popes in the past have tried to live up to St Peter’s weakness rather than his goodness. But, if nothing else, then the Pope is required for this reason.

IN MY OPINION.

 

[dianaiad]

No I’m not saying this at all. The Pope says that non-Catholics are Christians, also, though their worship is somewhat deficient. I have, absolutely, no reason to disagree with that.

For non-Christians there is the policy of Baptism of Desire: Muslims, Jews etc.

“I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd” (John 10:16).

“Work out your own salvation in fear and trembling; for God is at work in you” (Phil. 2:12–13).

‘…who will have all men to be saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth…’ (1 Tim 2:4)
This a full 1500 years before The Gospel was declared in The Americas.

No: what I mean is that it is just for the reason of interpreting Scripture correctly that The Pope is required.

You can strip out the politics and the fact that many Popes in the past have tried to live up to St Peter’s weakness rather than his goodness. But, if nothing else, then the Pope is required for this reason.

IN MY OPINION.

I understand…and you have every right to your opinion. But consider; this thread isn’t about what is ‘true.’ It’s about what all Christians (even those that don’t consider the Pope to be the go to guy for scriptural interpretation) believe IN COMMON.

 

[jblake]

dianaiad;:

Would the 景教 not be Christians, because they didn’t call themselves Christian?

Now I would say that they weren’t, m’self. Christians have a bad habit of trying to push each other OUT of the system; why start forcing people INTO it that don’t claim it?

I’ll grant that I used a horrible example. But 景教 developed out of Syriac Christianity.

For linguistic, political, and various other reasons, they didn’t have a term for either Christ, or “Christianity”, unless one wants to translate “景教” as Christianity. (But that leaves no word for “Christ”. They used “上帝” for both God, and Christ. Contemporary Christianity uses either 天主, or 神. for God.)

jonathon

 

[Evan]

Two other extensive attempts to answer this question have been made:

CS Lewis wrote a book called ‘Mere Christianity’ in which he tried to distill the teachings that all Christians adhere to.

A century ago, a group of protestant denominations redefined themselves as holding to

the fundamentals:
the inerrancy of the Bible,
Sola Scriptura,
the virgin birth of Christ,
the doctrine of substitutionary atonement,
the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and
the imminent personal return of Jesus Christ.

For more see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity

 

[dianaiad]

I’ll grant that I used a horrible example. But 景教 developed out of Syriac Christianity.

For linguistic, political, and various other reasons, they didn’t have a term for either Christ, or “Christianity”, unless one wants to translate “景教” as Christianity. (But that leaves no word for “Christ”. They used “上帝” for both God, and Christ. Contemporary Christianity uses either 天主, or 神. for God.)

jonathon

Ok, but what do THEY mean by that? If they think they are talking about a certain Jesus of Nazareth, and say so, then the name they use could be translated as “Christian,” I supposed. We’d have to ask them what they want to do about it.

 

[dianaiad]

Two other extensive attempts to answer this question have been made:

CS Lewis wrote a book called ‘Mere Christianity’ in which he tried to distill the teachings that all Christians adhere to.

A century ago, a group of protestant denominations redefined themselves as holding to

the fundamentals:
the inerrancy of the Bible,
Sola Scriptura,
the virgin birth of Christ,
the doctrine of substitutionary atonement,
the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and
the imminent personal return of Jesus Christ.

For more see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity

I admire CS Lewis greatly, and I have read two copies of “Mere Christianity” to flinders. I agree with many of his positions.

That said, the problem with the above list is that every single one of them ends up eliminating people who firmly believe that they ARE Christian, and who do share a belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ as they believe them to be, and claim the name. They think they are right, and those who adhere to the belief they disagree with are wrong.

So why should they accept the judgment of people they think are wrong about whether they are really Christians?

Now I’m certain that all Christians agree on many of the above items…but probably not all the same ones.