What are the most basic Christian doctrines???

[Christopher Chapman]

i have seen books or heard teaching on basic christian doctrines. they usually include the trinity, inspiration of the bible, etc. the point is they usually make a long list of things that must be believed in order to be christian. i would like to discuss where this list comes from? who decides it? and what is your list? this is somewhat related to the discussion that robert jimenez started about the importance of theology.

what must someone believe to go to heaven? how long is your list and why do you say so?

[Christopher Chapman]

i was going to wait for people to throw in their thoughts, but everyone has been silent. so i am going to get the ball rolling and hope others chime in. i believe this is an important thing for us to discuss. the question about what is "essential" and what is not is so important in a group that discusses theology. so i have written alot below, but i encourage my brothers (and sisters) to press through what i have to say below, and then add your imput!

as we enter into this discussion we have to ask how "beliefs" realate to "acts". and which is most fundamental. i believe that acts (two in particular) are the most foundational issues, even before beliefs. i beleive it is what we do, not what we believe that qualifies or disqualifies us for heaven (i am not talking about "works" and "faith"- please read below)

i believe those 2 acts are:

1. repenting of our sins
2. placing our trust in jesus Christ.

i believe if somone does both of those (and continues in them) they will reach heaven. even if their doctrine is all jacked up!!!- for example: did the thief on the cross believe in the trinity? probably not, but he did repent and place his faith in christ. so the first shocker i present is that a person no matter how jacked their doctrine can enter the gates of heaven as long as they "repent and believe".

uh-oh!!! that sounds like pretty luked out theology!!! but let me qualify a bit. we have to ask what basic beliefs will naturally lead to performing these 2 "acts". someone who doesnt beleive in the 2 beliefs i am about to present might "repent (toward god) and believe (in christ)" but it is not likely.

so i propose that there are two foundational beliefs that will consistently lead to the two foundational practices. believing these two doctrines will not save someone. they will only lead to repentance and faith. those to things will reconcile us to god.

the two beliefs are:

1. There is one God (this implies there is one who has complete and authority- and thus we should repent and submit to him)
2. Jesus is savior (jesus is able to save- so we can trust him to save us)

this leaves out so much. trinity, inspiration of scripture, divinity and humanity of christ, etc. etc. etc. i would term these and the like as "supporting doctrines". i mean to say that all of these only help proctect those two primary or foundational doctrines. it does not mean they are not "foundational" or important. i just mean they are not the "most foundational" nor utterly necessary for eternal life.

let me give you a couple examples of what i mean:

if someone believes that jesus is only a man, will he trust his eternal destiny in his hands? probably not. so the doctrine of christs dual nature (human and divine) protects the doctrine of "jesus as savior". in turn that leads naturally to trusting him for salvation.

what does the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith protect? it protects the fact that "christ is the savior", not man.

etc. etc. etc. etc.

those are a couple examples, but i hope you get the point. they are very important doctrines, because they protect the primary doctrines. this is why the church took a while to formulate the doctrine of the trinity or the humanity and divinity of christ. they were just trying to protect the basic doctrines of the one god and christ the savior. they had to reconcile those beliefs in order to protect them. this is how we got what we not call "orthodoxy".

CONTINUED BELOW---

[Christopher Chapman]

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE:

this important for classifying the importance of specific doctrines in someones theology. i have seen and heard many arguments in the christian world. they sometimes argue about very important things and at other times they argue very passionately for "non-essential" doctrines. the problem is that everyone is arguing about what is "non-essential". one mans "non-essential" is another man's "utterly-essential". i think it is important in a group about theology that we define what is essential and non-essential and give reasons why we say so.

let me define a couple important terms.

HERESY- i believe heresy is a belief that would naturally lead someone to deny the most essential doctrines. note: somone might believe in heresy without denying the most essential doctrines, but if they were consistent they would eventually deny those foundational doctrines.

EXAMPLE: if i deny the headship of adam and the consequence of his sin, it would naturally lead me to deny the headship and consequences of christ's righteousness. but i have heard people (popular preacher related to praise chapel- though not in the fellowship) say that we dont die as a consequence of adams sin (he says that would be unfair and unjust), but he still holds that people live because of christ's righteousness (also should be counted unfair and unjust if he was consistent!). so he believes a heresy, but doesnt follow it to its conclusion and deny the foundational doctrine of christ's saving power. so all heretics wont necessarily miss heaven, though they have to be really inconsistent in their beliefs to get there!!! but these doctrines are worth fighting tooth and nail for. if we dont, we will soon be fighting for whether christ is savior or not and whether there is one god or many!!!

the second term is:

ERROR: "error" is a false belief that is not consistent with what the scriptures teach, but does not necessarily lead to denying the primary beliefs.

EXAMPLE: believing the gifts of the holy spirit have ceased is error. that is not what the bible teaches. but it is not heresy, because it doesnt naturally lead anyone to deny that god is one or that christ is savior.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE: A more interesting example is the fact that T.D Jakes beleives that God is one person not three (i.e. oneness) not three persons in one god. many would quickly call him a heretic for such an "heretical" belief. but the only reason they would feel so strong about it is becasue they have been taught that the "trinity" is all important! and indeed the trinity is very, very important. but if the goal is that someone repents and places their trust in christ, and the beliefs that naturally lead to that are that there is one god and jesus is the savior, what he believes is not so accursed as we might first think. the oneness doctrine (without the added conclusions given by the united pentecostal movement-which is heresy) doesnt lead us to deny that god is one or that christ is savior. so we should call this error, not heresy. error because it is not backed up by the scriptures.

well, i feel like i just wrote a book. but i feel this is an important thing to discuss in our theology group. so please add your thoughts if you made it through all my wierd thinking!!!

[Robert Jimenez]

Wow! That was long and good. How I am suppose to respond? hahaha - well you gave a lot to chew on.

What is the bear minimum of information you can have to be saved is simple, and I think that you did a good job of outlining it.

But if asked a different question, how would you define being a Christian, that would include further doctrines. One of the questions that Jesus asked is "Who do men say that I am?"

If I am going to call myself a Christian, then I am going to have to embrace a bit more than just the ones you outlined, and I think that would also include the Trinity.

[Christopher Chapman]

yes indeed. it would include trinity, dual nature of christ, eternal nature of god, etc. etc. but i think they could be classified as a christian before they believed and knew those things. i believed and repented as an atheist. for months i still assumed evolution was true, even though it is a heresy that would destroy the doctrine of the atonement. so i think someont who has begun the journey and has at least passed the line of "repent and believe" is in the "christian" category. but of course theywill grow clearer in their "theology" as they continue on the journey.

but when peter responded to christ's question i dont think he understood the trinity. he didnt even understand that christ had to die, as proven by the rest of the passage where he got rebuked. so he didnt even understand the atonement, much less the trinity.

my outline was specifically realted to the issue of getting to heaven or not. i didnt bring up the later progress that should be made by the convert or believer. a healthy faith should grow into believing and understanding (at least at a basic level) all the doctrines like trinity, etc.

peter didnt understand those things at that point, but was a christian, but of course he later understood and wrote about those more complete doctrines. the thief on the cross surely would have come to beleive the trinity, get baptized, etc. if he would have had the time to progress in faith. so i think the term "christian" can be applied to someone has the basic two "acts" i stated and then continues on the progression of their faith. but even that progression depends on the input and surroundings they have access to. i think of apollos speaking clearly what he knew, but aquila and pricilla explained the way more accurately to him (acts 18). then in acts 19 paul found some "disciples" (i think this is the bible term for christian) that had only been taught by apollos. they were termed disciples, but their knowledge and faith were far from complete. they didnt know the right baptism or even about the holy spirit (at least the holy spirit baptism). so they were disciples cause they had already responded with right hearts to what they heard, but were far from complete in knowledge. so i might say anyone who has begun the journey is a "christian" as long as they remain on the journey. i dont know, i think something like that gets us close to a good answer.

i have had to deal with this issue alot as i disciples muslims from zero. i usually dont let them call themselves disciples (or chrisitans) until they have been baptized. but i am sure god accepts them somewhere along the way when they have true faith and repentance. anyway.....................

[Robert Jimenez]

Chris,

I agree with what you are saying. I think that as you live longer in the faith more is required. For instance, if a Muslim gave his life to the Lord, but could not grasp that Jesus is God, and only a prophet that could be a problem. Also that is why we call JW's, Mormon's and others cults. Because they have a vast misunderstanding of who Christ is.

Understanding who Christ is, is why we call ourselves Christians. Or my preferred one is Christ-like. ;-) I like keeping the transformation part intack.

There is lots of dialog going on in the blogging sphere right now and various books being written on this subject. Chuck Colson just wrote one on a vary popular level. Michael Patton just did an extensive blog on this matter. I'll go and review it and see if anything good is worth repeating here.

[Christopher Chapman]

agree completely.

and id like to add that because of their misconception about christ (jws, mormons, muslims, etc) they dont trust in him as their savior. so they seek salvation by works. i think it is important when discussion doctrines that we always keep in mind how the beliefs and concepts lead to obedience or disobedience to the two primary commands "repent and beleive". i think it is the result of the concepts that leads to destruction, not necessarily just holding those things in our mind.

an iranian i know got savied in kansas city when when he went to a revival and got "slain" in the spirit. his life changed. he believed that jesus saved him and that he had to change from that day. for the next month he was so excited to have been changed and touched. he was hungry to learn. then one day in a bible study someone mentioned that christ was god. he said, "what, jesus is God?". he didnt realized that. but as they explained it to him then he realized he was already living like it was true, he just didnt have the concept clear in his mind.

so if you would have asked him that month who jesus was, he would have said a prophet and a savior. but later the concepts came. so it was the act of faith and repentance that was the key, but the concepts had to follow close behind to maintain a consistent faith. and if he would have rejected the concept for too long, eventually he would reason that jesus couldnt really be his savior if he was only a prophet.

i think this connection between "concepts (beliefs) and acts (repentance and trusting christ)" has been overlooked in all the basic christian doctrine stuff i have read. i think it is the key of keeping in perspective what the most important concepts are. some seem to make theology and correct doctrine as something they defend gods honor with. i dont think we are supposed to protect doctrine for god's sake, but for the sake of his flock (that is the way we really bless him). i think this is sometimes lost in theological discussions.

[Robert Jimenez]

Chris,

I whole heartily agree with this:
"i think this connection between "concepts (beliefs) and acts (repentance and trusting christ)" has been overlooked in all the basic christian doctrine stuff i have read."

Biblical Information without transformation is worthless, at least it will be in the end. I think that there has to be transformation in ones life. I think that good theology will lead to a transformed life. I have been working really hard when teaching theology at our church that transformation, Christ-likeness is the goal.

[Pastor Jerome H. Weymouth]

here's one on the Council of Nicaea......and how doctrine was developed and fought for...

Christian History, Winter 2005

The Road to Nicaea
The Council of Nicaea strove to answer one of the central questions of the Christian faith, but it also proved that theology is never a tidy business.
By John Anthony McGuckin


Graffiti emblazoned on walls, a vicious war of pamphlets, riots in the streets, lawsuits, catchy songs of ridicule … It's hard for modern Christians to imagine how such public turmoil could be created by an argument between theologians—or how God could work through the messiness of human conflict to bring the church to an understanding of truth.

To us, in retrospect, the Council of Nicaea is a veritable mountain in the landscape of the early church. For the protagonists themselves, it was more in the nature of an emergency meeting forced on hostile parties by imperial power and designed to stop an internal row. After the council, many of the same bishops who had signed its creed appeared at other councils, often reversing their previous decisions according to the way the winds of preferment were blowing. They found themselves less in a domain of monumental clarity and more in a swamp of confusing arguments and controversies that at times seemed to threaten the very continuity of the Christian church. To understand the significance of the Council of Nicaea, we need to enter into the minds of the disputants and ask why so much bitterness and confusion had been caused by one apparently simple question: in what way is Jesus divine?

Of course, like many "simple" questions, this was a highly complex and provocative issue. Theologians of that era were almost beside themselves when they found that Scripture often gave very different-sounding notes when they applied to it for guidance. The disagreements this "simple" question provoked made many of the greatest minds of the era wonder to what extent the Christian doctrines of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit were coherent, and even to what extent Christians could trust in the canon of sacred text (which had hitherto seemed to them sufficient as an exposition of the faith).

In many ways, therefore, Nicaea reminds us of the present era. Rather than being a symbol of clarity, peace, and order, it was a call to a difficult focusing of mind across a church that was often as muddled and confused as ours seems still to be.

How does "one God" fit with "Lord Jesus"?
The argument began innocently enough with a regular seminar that Alexander, the archbishop of Alexandria, was accustomed to hold with his senior clergy.

Alexander was a follower of Origen [see Issue #80: The First Bible Teachers] who, a century beforehand, had laid the basis for a vast mystical understanding of the relationship of the divine Logos to the Eternal Father. Logos was the word the Greek Bible had used to translate "Divine Wisdom," and it was also widely used in Greek philosophical circles to signify the divine power immanent within the world. To many Christians, it seemed a marvelous way to talk about the Eternal Son of God and became almost a synonym for the Son.

Like Origen, Alexander saw the Logos as sharing the divine attributes of the Father, especially that of eternity. The Logos, he argued, had been "born of God before the ages." Since God the Father had decided to use the Logos as the medium and agent of all creation (e.g. John 1:1, Ephesians 1:4, Colossians 1:15-17), it followed that the Son-Logos pre-existed creation. Since time was a consequence of creation, the Son pre-existed all time and was thus eternal like the Father, and indeed his timelessness was one of the attributes that manifested him as the divine Son, worthy of the worship of the church. Since he was eternal there could be no "before" or "after" in him.

It was inappropriate, therefore, to suggest that there was ever a time when the Son did not exist. God was eternally a Father of a Son, Alexander argued, and just as the Father had always existed, so too the Son had always existed and was thus known to be "God from God." The Christological confessions about the Son (later to be inserted into the creed of Nicaea),"Born not created, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God," all made this clear. It was at once a high and refined scholarly confession of the faith and a popular prayer that summed up how Christians could be monotheists even as they worshipped the Son along with the Father.

Alexander knew that he was pushing the envelope of the traditional "high Christology" of his church by explaining how Christ's divinity could no longer be understood in the old simplistic ways of a "lesser divinity" alongside a "greater divinity." Alexander wanted to distinguish clearly between Christian and pagan theology by arguing that divinity is an absolute term (like pregnancy) that allows no degrees. One cannot say that the Son is "half God" or "part God" without making the very notion of deity into a mythical conception.

Given this development, many traditional Christian pieties would need to be re-forged in the fourth century. People sensed that they were on the cusp of a major new development—but they were not always quite sure what was happening, and more to the point, they lacked a precise or widely agreed-upon vocabulary to explain to themselves (and others) what exactly was going on.

Theological niceties—or the essence of Christianity?
One of Alexander's senior priests, the presbyter Arius, was scandalized at the direction in which his bishop was taking theological language. Arius, who had charge of the large parish of Baucalis in the city's dockland, had also been an intellectual disciple of Origen but had taken a different strand of that early theologian's variegated legacy.

As was typical among third-century thinkers, Origen had a deeply ingrained sense of the absolute primacy of God over all other beings. This meant that the Father was superior to the Son in all respects—in terms of essence, attributes, power, and quality. The Son might be called divine in so far as he represented the Father to the created world as the supreme agent of the creation (something like one of the greatest of all angelic powers), but he was decidedly inferior to the Father in all respects. This meant that the Son did not possess absolute timelessness, which was a sole attribute of God the Father.

Thinking that he was defending "traditional values," Arius pressed that insight of Origen's even further. The Son-Logos, Arius allowed, might well have pre-dated the rest of creation, but it was inappropriate to imagine that he shared the divine pre-existence. Thus, it was important to confess the principle that "there was a time when he (the Logos) was not." Arius quickly put this axiom into a rhyme, which he taught his parishioners and so made it into a party cause. Soon slogans were ringing round the docklands, and the diocese of Alexandria was in serious disarray. Arius' supporters chanted, "Een pote hote ouk een," and wrote the slogan on the walls. Overnight Alexander's camp added a Greek negative to the beginning: "Ouk een pote ouk een": "There was never a time when he was not!"

Everyone, skilled theologian or not, seemed to have been caught by surprise that a controversy over so basic a matter (was the Son of God divine? And how?) could have arisen in the church, and even more surprised that recourse to Scripture was proving so problematic. For every text that showed the divine status of the Son ("I and the Father are One," John 10:30; "And the Word was God," John 1:1), another could be quoted back to suggest the subordinate, even the created, status of the Son ("In the beginning he created me (Wisdom)," Proverbs 8:22; "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone," Mark 10:18). If Jesus was not fully God, he was not really God at all, and thus to worship him was not piety but simply idolatry.

Alexander (applying good pastoral sense) would not allow a theologian's dispute to mushroom out publicly in this alarming way, so he censured Arius for appearing to deny the Son's eternity and true divinity and deposed him from his priestly office. Arius immediately appealed against that disciplinary decision to one of the most powerful bishops of the era, Eusebius of Nicomedia, a kinsman by marriage to Constantine the emperor. Arius and Eusebius had been students together and shared a common theological view. Eusebius, the court theologian at the imperial capital, knew that if Arius was being attacked then so was he. From that moment onwards he was determined to squash what he regarded as a "foolish Egyptian piety." By elevating the Son of God to the same status as God the Father, he argued, Christianity would compromise its claim to be a monotheist religion. He marshaled many supporters.

The Anniversary Council
The bitterness of the dispute seemed remarkable to many observers, but what was at stake was no less than a major clash between two confessional traditions that had been uneasy companions in the church for generations. In one, the subordination of the Son was stressed (Christ the Servant of God). In the other, the salvific triumph of the Saviour was tantamount (Christ the Lord of Glory in his most intimate union with the Father).

So notorious had the falling out of Eastern bishops become over this matter that it was brought to the attention of Emperor Constantine who, in 324, had defeated his last rival to become sole monarch of all the Roman Empire. Constantine decided to use the occasion of the 20th anniversary of his claiming of the throne (an event that sparked a civil war), which would be celebrated in 325, to help settle the embarrassing dispute among his allies, the bishops. He felt (rightly) that their disarray was compromising his desire to demonstrate that he had effectively "brought peace" to the eastern territories.

So it was that he summoned bishops to his private lakeside palace at Nicaea ("Victory City") in Asia Minor (now Iznik in Turkey), offering to pay all their expenses, to supply them with the traditional "gifts" that followed an invitation to the court, and even to afford them the prestigious use of the official transport system, a privilege which had always been strictly reserved for officers of state. The buzz this created was all the more remarkable among the bishops of the East, who only a year or so before had lived under a persecutor's oppression. Though Constantine envisaged a truly international meeting of minds, in fact very few Latin bishops attended—only representative delegations from the leading sees such as Rome.

The council opened on June 19. Tradition has it that 318 clergy were in attendance (a Greek number-cipher for the cross), but many modern historians think that 250 is a more accurate figure. As the meeting opened, Constantine took his place on the imperial throne and greeted his guests. He spent the opening session accepting scrolls (secret petitions for favors and for redress) from the many bishops in attendance, and then startled them all the next day by bringing in a large brazier and burning the whole pile of scrolls before them—saying enigmatically that in this way the debts of all had been cancelled. By this he implied that most of the petitions from the bishops had been aimed at one another, and rather than put many on trial he had given a common amnesty.

The order of the day was to resolve the question about the eternity and divine status of the Son of God. Many of the bishops were not well educated, but a few of them were highly skilled rhetoricians and theologians, and they were determined that if anything theological was to be settled by the large council, it would be in favor of the pro-Alexander lobby. So they pressed for a refinement of the baptismal creed of Jerusalem, which had been submitted by Eusebius of Caesarea as a blueprint for a "traditional statement of faith." Eusebius had been deposed at an earlier synod for having publicly attacked Alexander's theology. Under pressure from Constantine, the assembly at Nicaea pardoned him and restored him to office after he offered the creed of his own church as evidence of his change of heart.

All the bishops recognized how unarguably "authentic" this statement of faith was, but the Jerusalem creed did not really resolve the precise issue under consideration, that is, how the Son of God related to the divine Father. To this end, the bishops decided that extra clauses would be interpolated into the old creed as "commentary," in order to amplify the bare statements about the mission of Christ and show how Jesus could be confessed as God.

Creed and Catchword
The origin of these "confessional acclamations" of Christ ("God from God, Light from Light" etc.) was Alexander's party, but since it had become clear in years of wrangling that even their opponents could accept Christ's title as "god from God" (as meaning a nominal, inferior deity from the superior, absolute deity), many of the Alexandrians demanded a firmer test of faith.

It was possibly Ossius, the theological adviser of the emperor, who suggested that the magic word to nail the Arian party would be homoousios. The term meant "of the same substance as," and when applied to the Logos it proclaimed that the Logos was divine in the same way as God the Father was divine (not in an inferior, different, or nominal sense). In short, if the Logos was homoousios with the Father, he was truly God alongside the Father. The word pleased Constantine, who seems to have seen it as an ideal way to bring all the bishops back on board for a common vote. It was broad enough to suggest a vote for the traditional Christian belief that Christ was divine, it was vague enough to mean that Christ was of the "same stuff" as God (no further debate necessary), and it was bland enough to be a reasonable basis for a majority vote.

It had everything going for it as far as the politically savvy Constantine was concerned, but for the die-hard Arian party, it was a word too far. They saw that it gave the Son equality with the Father without explaining how this relationship worked. (In fact, it would be another 60 years before anyone successfully articulated the doctrine of the Trinity.) Therefore they attacked it for undermining the biblical sense of the Son's obedient mission. The intellectuals among the group (chiefly Eusebius of Nicomedia) also attacked it for its crassness—it attributed "substance" (or material stuff) to God, who was beyond all materiality. Moreover, the term was unsuitable because it was "not found in the Holy Scriptures," and indeed this did disturb many of the bishops present for the occasion.

The great majority of bishops still endorsed the idea, however, and so with Constantine pressing for a consensus vote the word entered into the creed they published. It was not that the bishops at Nicaea were themselves simply looking for a convenient consensus in the synod's vote. Many synods had been held before this extraordinarily large one at Nicaea, and ancient bishops predominantly worked on the premise that decisions of the church's leadership required unanimity. Their task was to proclaim the ancient Christian faith against all attacks, and this was not something they felt they had to seek out or worry over—they simply had to state among themselves a common and clear heritage, one that could be proclaimed by universal acclamation. They believed that they were the direct continuance of the first apostolic gathering at Jerusalem, when the Holy Spirit led all the apostles to the realization of the gospel truth.

Because of this, when a few bishops dissented and refused their vote, the remaining bishops excommunicated and deposed them, accusing them of having refused to be part of the family of faith. Among this group was Eusebius of Nicomedia. All of the deposed bishops received harsh sentences from the emperor (although Eusebius was confident he could wiggle out of his disgrace, as soon he did).

The end? Not quite
Once the main item of controversy was settled (the acceptance of Alexander's clauses and the admittance of the word homoousios), the other items fell into place quickly. The newly amplified creed was given a set of six legal "threats" attached to it (named anathemas) which spelled out in great detail all the classic marks of "Arian" philosophy and threatened with excommunication any who maintained them thereafter.


Click here to read a related article.

The meeting then turned to what most bishops had originally wanted to do anyway—set up reforms to consolidate a church in the East that had long been torn apart by oppressors and had not been able to regulate its affairs on the larger front for many years. To resolve such problems the bishops drew up a list of laws (named canons, from the Greek word for "rule" or "normative measure"). These 20 canons have never attracted as much attention as the doctrines of Nicaea but actually had immense importance, as they were the reference point around which all future collections of church law were modeled and collated.

After all doctrinal and canonical work was finished, the emperor concluded the council with great festivities. Hardly was the council closed when the old party factions broke out with as much rancor as before. Even stalwart advocates of the Nicene Council—men like Athanasius the Great, Eustathius of Antioch, and Ossius of Cordoba—wondered, as the fourth century progressed, whether this had been a good idea or not. Those who attended the Council of Nicaea might well have felt that they had achieved a lasting settlement. As we shall see, however, the controversy was far from over.

John Anthony McGuckin is professor of early church history at Union Theological Seminary and Professor of Byzantine Christianity at Columbia University in New York. He is a priest of the Orthodox Church (Patriarchate of Romania).

Who Came to the Council of Nicaea?
Judging from what little we know about the identity of those who attended, the council was overwhelming Eastern. Only six or seven bishops are recorded as having come from Western churches, among them were Ossius (or Hosius) of Cordoba, Caecilianus of Carthage, and two representatives from the church of Rome. The small number of bishops from the West reflected the general ignorance among Western churches of those theological issues that had embroiled the East.

Of the bishops from the East, Asia Minor (present-day Turkey), Syria, Palestine, and Egypt were best represented. Several came from Arabia, Persia, Libya, and Greece. One even came from Armenia [see p. 46]. Bishops from almost all of the oldest and major sees of the East were present: Alexander of Alexandria, Antiochus of Memphis (Egypt), Macarius of Jerusalem, Eusebius of Caesarea, Eustathius of Antioch (Syria), Magnus of Damascus, Januarius of Jericho, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eutychius of Smyrna, Menophantes of Ephesus, Artemidorus of Sardis and, of course, Theognis of Nicaea.

But the most esteemed personalities at the council were Paphnutius of Upper Thebes and Spyridon of Cyprus. Paphnutius was a confessor, having had his eyes put out for confessing the faith during the last persecution of Christians, and Spyridon was well known for his life of self-denial and miracle working. The emperor himself was said to have greeted them personally and sought their prayers.

—D. H. Williams


Copyright © 2005 by the author or Christianity Today International/Christian History & Biography magazine.
Click here for reprint information on Christian History & Biography.
Issue 85, Winter 2005, Vol. XXIV, No. 1, Page 18

[David Velasquez]

Chris let me ask a question than, so you are here defining what it's essential to become a Christian/born Again? Rather than what is necessary to be thought off by the Universal Church as a Christian church? I am a bit confused about the essentials you are referring to. Help me out bro!

[David Velasquez]

if i could have condensed it i would have but it already is in a summarice format - he said it better than i can so check it out.
by Norman L. Geisler
This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 28, number 6 (2005).
SYNOPSIS
Part two in this series takes a logical approach to answering the question of what makes a doctrine essential. There are two criteria: First, the doctrine must concern and be connected to our salvation; that is, it must be salvific. Second, its connection to our salvation must be crucial; that is, it must be so tied to our salvation that if it were not true, our salvation as God revealed it would not be possible. When these criteria are applied to the list discovered by the historical approach outlined in part one, the same basic doctrines emerge. The Trinity, the deity of Christ, His atoning death, and His bodily resurrection are all necessary in the first stage of salvation: justification (salvation from the penalty of sin in the past). Christs ascension and present advocacy are necessary in the second stage: sanctification (salvation from the power of sin in the present). Christs second coming and final judgments are necessary in the third stage: glorification (salvation from the presence of sin in the future). Christs virgin birth is connected to salvation because it speaks of His sinlessness and supernatural origin, which are necessary for salvation. The infallibility of the Bible is an essential doctrine in that by it we know the salvific doctrines, because those doctrines are based on the Scriptures.

These essential doctrines must necessarily be true to make salvation possible, but a person need not believe all of them to be saved. One, however, cannot deny certain of these doctrines, such as Christs deity, His death for our sins, and His resurrection, and be saved.

Finally, the discussion of essential doctrines raises the question of whether Roman Catholicism is orthodox. If judged by historical standards, it is orthodox, because it affirms all of the doctrines in the creeds and councils of the first five centuries of the church. If judged by logical standards, however, it is unorthodox, because it denies those doctrines that the Protestant Reformers deemed to be essential to salvation, such as justification by grace alone through faith alone.
What are the essential doctrines of the Christian faith? One way to answer this question, as noted in part one of this series, is to take a historical approach: the essential doctrines are those found in the early creeds of the church. Another way to answer this is to take a logical approach. This approach is better, since it avoids many of the pitfalls of the historical approach, especially the debate about which creeds and councils should be accepted.

The logical approach simply begins with the teachings of the New Testament on salvation and asks, What are the essential doctrines on salvation without which salvation would not be possible? This approach yields the same basic salvation doctrines of the early creeds discussed in part one, except for the anathemas (curses for believing false doctrine) and baptismal regeneration. Salvation as described in the Bible, based in the deity, death, and resurrection of Christwhich is the gospel (1 Cor. 15:16)entails all these essential doctrines, including: (1) human depravity, (2) Christs virgin birth, (3) Christs sinlessness, (4) Christs deity, (5) Christs humanity, (6) Gods unity, (7) Gods triunity, (8) the necessity of Gods grace, (9) the necessity of faith, (10) Christs atoning death, (11) Christs bodily resurrection, (12) Christs bodily ascension, (13) Christs present high priestly service, (14) Christs second coming, final judgment, and reign.

[David Velasquez]

Some may question how Christs present service, second coming, kingdom reign, and final judgment are essential doctrines of salvation.
The answer lies in understanding salvation in the broad sense of all three stages: justification, sanctification, and glorification. According to Scripture, (1) we have been saved from the penalty of sin (by justification) the moment we believe (Rom. 3:28; 5:1; Gal. 3:24), (2) we presently are in the process of being saved from the power of sin (by sanctification) (John 17:17; Eph. 5:2526; 1 Thess. 5:23), and (3) we will at death or at Christs coming be saved from the very presence of sin (by glorification; that is, by being made perfect) (Rom. 8:30; 1 Cor. 13:1013; 1 John 3:2).

This being the case, we can see that doctrines 11 are essential for justification; that is, without them our justification would not be possible. Likewise, doctrines 12 and 13 (Christs ascension and present service) are necessary for our sanctification, and doctrine 14 (the second coming) is needed to complete salvation, namely, to achieve our glorification.1 These last three doctrines (1214) are not always given in lists of essentials of the faith because in such cases only the doctrines regarding our justification are in view.2

WHAT MAKES A DOCTRINE ESSENTIAL?

There are many important teachings of Scripture (e.g., the prohibitions against blasphemy, idolatry, adultery, and murder) that are not among the previously listed doctrines. What, then, makes a doctrine essential? Judging by the doctrines that the historic Christian church pronounced as essential, two basic characteristics emerge. First, the doctrine must be connected to our salvation. That is, it must be soteriological or salvific in nature. Second, its connection to our salvation must be crucial. In other words, salvation as God has revealed it would not be possible without the doctrine being true.

These two criteria are clearly revealed in most of the doctrines that were listed previously. The Trinity, Christs deity, His atoning death, and His bodily resurrection are all necessary for our salvation. Further, as was shown earlier, Christs ascension, present service, and second coming are necessary for salvation in the broad sense that includes not only justification but also sanctification and glorification. There are, however, other doctrines in the list that do not appear to be necessary for our salvation.

What about Christs virgin birth (more precisely, His supernatural conception in the virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit)? Was it essential for our salvation? Certainly the underlying doctrine to which the virgin birth pointsthe sinlessness of Christis essential to salvation, for a sinner cannot be the Savior of other sinners.3 He would need a Savior himself. A drowning person cant save another drowning person. Was the virgin birth necessary, however, to Christs being sinless? This much seems certain: anyone born the natural way would have beenshort of divine interventiona sinner like the rest of us (Rom. 3:23; 5:12); and the virgin birth (i.e., supernatural conception) was one way to circumvent this. Whether it was the only way or whether, say, an immaculate conception, whereby Christ would have been conceived in the natural way but without the stain of original sin, would have worked is both moot and irrelevant. The virgin birth was one way to do it, and it was the way God chose to do it. In addition, it was important, if not crucial, to our salvation that God supernaturally signify which of all the persons born of women (Gen. 3:15; Gal. 4:4) was His Son, the Savior of the world.4 A natural but sinless conception of Christ would not have been an outward sign that drew attention to the Saviors supernatural and sinless nature from the very beginning. The virgin birth, therefore, was a divinely appointed necessity for our salvation, by the underlying doctrine of Christs sinlessness and by the supernatural nature of it.

What is more, some have n

[David Velasquez]

What is more, some have noted that the virgin birth points to and preserves the eternal Father-Son relationship between the first and second persons of the Trinity. While this does not explain in itself how Adams sinful nature is transmitted to his natural posterity, it does offer a possible explanation for why the Adamic nature was not transmitted to Christ: Christ had no earthly father, only a heavenly one, who like Himself was sinless. By Christs virgin birth the sinless heavenly Father-Son relationship was preserved and the earthly father-son relationship was interrupted; thus, neither Adams sin, nor its consequence, death (Rom. 5:12), could be transmitted to Christ. It was as impossible that the sinless Son could be born sinful as it was that the Prince of Life could be held by death (Acts 2:24; 3:15).5

THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF ESSENTIALS

There are other reasons why one sees different lists of essential (or fundamental) doctrines of the faith. One reason is because of the failure to distinguish between three different kinds of essential doctrines: soteriological, epistemological, and hermeneutical.

Soteriological Essentials

Soteriological essentials are those having to do with salvation (Gk. soteria means salvation). In short, if these doctrines are not true, then salvation is not possible. This is why they are essentials of the faith, as the foregoing discussion shows.

As weve seen, soteriological essentials may be divided into those necessary for our justification (e.g., Christs death and resurrection), those necessary for our sanctification (e.g., Christs ascension and present session as our advocate), and those necessary for our glorification (e.g., His second coming and final judgment).

Epistemological Essentials

Conspicuous by its absence from the previous list of essentials is the inspiration of Scripture, which was listed as one of the great fundamentals of the faith by modern conservatives such as B. B. Warfield, Charles Hodge, and J. Gresham Machen. The reason for this omission is that the previous list contains only soteriological essentials. One can be saved without believing in the inspiration and (consequent) inerrancy of the Bible.6 An inerrant Scripture is not necessary for salvation. People were saved before there was a Bible, and people are saved through reading errant copies of the Bible (as opposed to the inerrant original manuscripts). Further, belief in inerrancy is not necessary in order to be saved. Inspiration and inerrancy are not a test for evangelical authenticity, but for evangelical consistency. Inspiration and inerrancy are not part of the plan of salvation one must believe to be saved, but they are part of the foundation that makes that plan of salvation knowable. In order for us to have a sure foundation for what we believe, God deemed it necessary to provide an inerrant Word as the basis of our beliefs.

Inspiration, therefore, is not a soteriological essential; rather, it is an epistemological essential. Epistemology (Gk. episteme means knowledge) deals with how we know. We never could be sure of the doctrines that are necessary for our salvation without a completely true, divinely authoritative revelation from God, such as we have in the Scriptures. The great ecumenical creeds, nonetheless, do mention the Scriptures as being the basis for what we believe; therefore, they do acknowledge this epistemological essential of the faith.

Hermeneutical Essentials

A third kind of essential is presupposed in this whole discussion: a hermeneutical essential (Gk. hermencia means interpretation). All of the previously mentioned doctrines relating to our salvation are based on a literal, historical-grammatical interpretation of Scripture.7 Without this, there is no orthodoxy. Most cults specialize in denying this literal method of interpretation in part or in whole. This is how they so easily can twist Scripture to their own heretical advantage.8

The whole Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura (Scripture alone) is based on the precondition of a literal interpretation of the Bible.9 The literal hermeneutic is, therefore, the fundamental method that makes possible our knowledge of all the doctrinal essentials.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT

Not all the essential doctrines in the creeds are stated explicitly. The doctrine of Scripture is one example. It is everywhere implied as the only infallible basis for Christian belief; however, it is nowhere treated explicitly. No creed or council ever treated it, but all of them implied it and cited it.

The doctrine of human depravity, likewise, is not explicitly treated in all these early creeds. It is, however, implied in the statements about Christ dying for our sins and about our need for remission and forgiveness of sins.

It is this distinction between explicit and implicit doctrinal truth that has led many theologians to speak of fidei implicitus (implicit faith). For example, a person who believes in the deity of Christ and the oneness of God is implicitly a Trinitarian, even though he (or she) does not explicitly believe (because he is yet untaught) the formal doctrine of the Trinity. It would seem that such a person who believes the gospel (that the Lord Jesus Christ died for our sins and was resurrected) can be saved without yet being an explicit Trinitarian.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT MUST BE TRUE
AND WHAT MUST BE BELIEVED

Not all soteriological essentials are necessary to be believed in order to be saved. For example, the virgin birth is nowhere stated as part of what is necessary to be believed in order to be saved; nonetheless, if Jesus were not actually born of a virgin, then He would have been sinful like the rest of the natural-born sons of Adam (Rom. 5:12f); and if He were sinful, then He could not be our Savior from sin. There is, therefore, a distinct difference between what must be true in order for us to be saved and what must be believed in order to be saved.

Someone, likewise, could not believe, or even could disbelieve, in the second coming of Christ and still be saved. If there were no second coming, however, then he could not be saved in the complete sense of some day being saved from the very presence of sin (glorification).