Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: the need for correct doctrine
Message-ID: <1675@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Sep-85 23:32:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1675
Posted: Tue Sep 24 23:32:38 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Sep-85 07:21:19 EDT
References: <304@cylixd.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 73

In article <304@cylixd.UUCP> charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) writes:

>Some comments from the July 1 Forum Letter by Richard John Neuhaus
>might be of interest here.

>In commenting on the "gnesio-Lutherans," Neuhaus states:

>"As important as the doctrine of justification by faith surely is, we
>are not baptized into a doctrine; we are baptized into the one, holy,
>catholic and apostolic Church. . . The one Church of which we are part
>has existed and does exist also where that doctrine is not taught."

>In a separate article, Neuhaus notes that the editors of the _Lutheran
>Perspective_ have stated that the Athanasian Creed "can be understood to
>suggest that correct faith is a work by which we merit salvation."  The
>editors suggest that a council of Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc.,
>meet to "clean up the text".  (For those not familiar with it, the
>Athanasian Creed is a doctrinal statement about the Trinity and the
>Incarnation.  It dates from about 400 A.D.)  

>The following seem like obvious questions for discussion:  

>Is correct faith or correct doctrine necessary to salvation?
>If so, to what extent?  What differentiates an unbeliever from
>a believer holding a "bad doctrine"?

>Should the Athanasian Creed be "cleaned up"?  If so, what would you
>change?

As is typical, the Anglican position on this is confusing and hedges often.
There is also dissent within the Anglican communion on this point.  The
Episcopal Church [in the USA] does not accept the authority of the
Athenasian Creed, and prints it as an appendix to the prayer book.  The
"official" pronouncement on the subject lies in the two "Quadrilaterals" (so
called because of the four point structure they share).  I quote from the
Chicago Quadrilateral of 1886:

  As inherent parts of this sacred deposit [of Christian Faith and Order],
  and therefore as essential to the restoration of unity among the divided
  branches of Christendom, we account the following, to wit:

  1.  The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the revealed Word
      of God.

  2.  The Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of the Christian Faith.

  3.  The two Sacraments,-- Baptism and the Supper of the Lord,-- ministered
      with unfailing use of Christ's words of institution and of the
      elements ordianed by Him.

  4.  The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its
      administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called
      of God into the unity of His Church.

Now, in point of fact current efforts strain at the wording of this
considerably.  Union with the Presbyterians must stumble on 3 and 4, unless
both are taken VERY loosely.  But to quote from an earlier section:

  [W]e believe that all who have been duly baptized with water, in the name
  of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, are members of the
  Holy Catholic Church.

So correct doctrine is VERY limited, to this one small thing.  All other
doctrinal and liturgical differences are only relevant to COOPERATION.  The
Lutherans and the Episcopalians have found it fairly easy to join in
communion; the considerable differences between Episcopal and (say) Southern
Baptist practices and theology essetially make union impossible.

As a final note, the Episcopal Church has struck the "Filoque" clause from
the Nicene creed, thereby easing the way towards relations with the Eastern
churches.

Charley Wingate