Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gymble.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!bennet From: bennet@gymble.UUCP (Tom Bennet) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: the need for correct doctrine Message-ID: <358@gymble.UUCP> Date: Sun, 29-Sep-85 02:19:25 EDT Article-I.D.: gymble.358 Posted: Sun Sep 29 02:19:25 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 4-Oct-85 03:52:01 EDT Distribution: net Organization: U of Maryland, Laboratory for Parallel Computation, C.P., MD Lines: 61 >From charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) Fri Sep 20 13:03:34 1985 >Message-ID: <304@cylixd.UUCP> > >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? > Concerning the first: Christianity is, after all, the religion of belief in Christ ("...whoever believes in Him should not perish..."). It is clear that this does not mean just any kind of belief concerning Christ (historical existence, that he had two legs, etc.), but some particular kind of belief is required. On the other hand, we must be careful not to think that more kinds of belief are included than actually are, since this tends to result in a lot of extra burdens on people and division amongst Christians. Christ criticized the Pharisees for making up extra rules, and it is important that any such list of beliefs does not extend farther than the New Testament permits. In the doctrinal discussions of the NT epistles, what thing is it about Christ which is most often discussed? The idea of Christ's death for sin is always central; it seems to be the starting point for all of Christian doctrine. As such, I would tend to list (approximately) the following as bare essential Christian doctrine: 1. Belief that Christ's death is in payment for one's own sin. 2. Some form of deity of Christ, since the NT discussion of #1 always assumes this. I think this could be held rather weakly: the main thing is to assert that he was not just "a good man," but was in some unique sense divine: "the Son of God." 3. Enough of a Christian worldview for 1 & 2 to make sense: existence of God, existence of sin, etc. It is important to remember that any statement of essential doctrine will be at best a necessary but not sufficient condition for being a Christian; the book of James speaks well to that point. Concerning the second: My only familiarity with the Creed is having read the copy which someone thoughtfully posted earlier, but I think it's clear that I would consider it far too strong a statement to be called essential. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "That we have made a hero of Howard Hughes tells us ... that the secret point of money and power in America is neither the things that money can buy nor power for power's sake ..., but absolute personal freedom, mobility, privacy." -- Joan Didion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Bennet @ U of MD Comp Sci Dept | ..!ihnp4!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!bennet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------