How much "extra" can a person believe and be a Christian?

[SoccerLOTR]

But how can we focus on being "just" a Christian? I think that these so called "extra" things are core to each denominations identity and being. It seems to me when people are saying we need to focus more on being "just" a Christian they're really saying we need have views closer to them.

I know for Orthodoxy there are a lot more core issues than just what might be called the "basics" that we believe the Church needs to be in agreement about and I imagine it's the same with many other denominations as well.

But all that being said yes it is unfortunate when denominations fight, we should be able to work together on some things despite our differences.

Mmm...my main point was the last sentence you have here. When I say that we need to focus on being Christians--I mean that the core beliefs are the most important and we should focus on our similarities rather than our differences sometimes--because fighting and not talking to one another doesn't help the rest of the world or further the cause of Christ. Sure, on some issues I wish we could agree a little more, but I don't think it makes someone unsaved or saved based on whether the women wear headcoverings or not, use wine or grape juice for communion, sing hymns or contemporary music at church, listen to rock music or not, worship in a home, school, or actual church building, eat meat or not, etc. We can have differences and still work together and get along to do what is right without condemning one another.

Yes, denominations all have beliefs and traditions that make them unique and give them an identity, and they don't always need to give those up. I think various denominations appeal to different groups of people and it is a tool that God uses to manifest Himself to all people because each denomination has a different environment where some people may fit in better than with other denominations. And each denomination often has different focuses and traditions that help certain people understand the gospel better or feel more comfortable in worship. Yeah, I sometimes have issues with certain views or beliefs, but unless they violate the core issues (I personally prefer the Apostle's Creed), I will not claim that they are not Christians.

[John Chrysostom]

Hmm I'm not sure I can agree with your point that different denominations are different tools or manifestations of God as that would mean that God leads people in those different denominations to believe totally contradictory things such as free will and predestination.

I'm not so sure about the Apostle's Creed simply because it doesn't come from any Councils but from later Western Catholic individuals such as Ambrose and was put together piecemeal from that time until present. But I'm also surprised you'd accept it given the line about Communion of the Saints.

[TigerintheShadows]

I'm just going to randomly jump in here; this topic title intrigued my attention. Top is a good topic title-er.

How much "extra" can a person believe...I'd say none of it.

That's not to say that you can't believe what people have written in analysis about the Bible (e.g. Systematic Theology, Politics According to the Bible, et cetera), but there's a difference between an analysis to the Bible and a different set of doctrines entirely. Basically, square it with Scripture...if it's not contrary to Scripture, then it's not likely to be a problem.

The reason why I say you can't believe "extra" is because that implies that it's "Jesus + x = salvation." Be the variable good works, baptism, confirmation, whatever, the word "extra" implies that there can be something else in there...and there can't. Because when you add to the Gospel, you're adding to something that is perfect the way it is.

[John Chrysostom]

So your church has no traditions or order of service? You also reject any of the Creeds generally accepted by most denominations such as the Nicene or Apostles? Also did I understand you correctly when you said baptism is an extra? Also how are books on systematic theology any different than doctrines or traditions held by a denomination?

[SoccerLOTR]

Hmm I'm not sure I can agree with your point that different denominations are different tools or manifestations of God as that would mean that God leads people in those different denominations to believe totally contradictory things such as free will and predestination.

I wouldn't go to the extreme of saying all the beliefs of various denominations are God saying such and such to them--I'm mainly speaking of the beliefs or practices that may not be addressed in the Bible, i.e. traditional worship vs. contemporary, etc. There are also things that vary between denominations or churches that simply are different emphases...for example, some churches emphasize local outreach and join with local charities or other church groups to help people in the community. Other churches prefer to do the local outreach directly from their church in an effort to bring people to them, and other churches feel that the most important thing is missionary work in other countries and support a number of missionaries and mission trips to other countries. None of these three churches are going against the Bible--they are simply expressing God's love to different groups of people. Some churches offer membership to their attendees, which appeals to some people who may like the feeling of "officially" belonging to a group, whereas other churches don't believe there should be membership at all, which may appeal to other types of people. Most of these things aren't doctrinal issues--simply different expressions of faith or traditions.

I'm not so sure about the Apostle's Creed simply because it doesn't come from any Councils but from later Western Catholic individuals such as Ambrose and was put together piecemeal from that time until present. But I'm also surprised you'd accept it given the line about Communion of the Saints.

Why does it need to come from a "council" to be a good summary of beliefs? I don't think there is anything in it that is contradictory to the Bible, nor do I read it as gospel or something--it is simply a statement of beliefs that I agree to be important. "Communion of the Saints" in this context does not refer to "the saints" as in the people designated as saints by some churches, but rather, "saints" can be translated to simply mean all believers...

( plural ) Bible: the collective body of those who are righteous in God's sight

It simply means that all believers are part of the Body of Christ and can refer to the fellowship between one another.

[John Chrysostom]

I can agree that churches with different focuses as to their mission is God leading them.

I think it needs to come from a Council to be representative of the beliefs of the Church as a whole at the time.

Well that's not what it meant when Ambrose wrote about the Communion of the Saints it means as you said all believers are part of the Body of Christ but not just the ones who are alive but all believers from the past as well; hence intercession of the Saints.

[SoccerLOTR]

Hmm...I'm hesitant to put too much stock in the "official" councils that are said to represent the Church. They can make good statements and the like, but I don't see a reason to hold them higher or less fallible than a church or other group--I only want to follow what the Bible says, not what some board says represents the beliefs of the Church. The Apostle's Creed is just a summary of what is in the Bible--not authoritative in and of itself--just a good way to summarize what I find in the Bible.

I believe there will be communion with the dead once I am dead--they are technically still part of the body of Christ, even though we cannot communicate with them while we're still alive on this earth.

[John Chrysostom]

Well my point is that before the schism the Councils were the Church. They were made up of the leadership of the Church and had to be accepted on the local level by each Church. There are several example of Councils that while being made up a large percentage of the leadership were not accepted at the local level and are not held at the same level as the Seven that were accepted by the Church before the schism. But to call them a "board" I think is a drastic understatement of what they were; the entire leadership of the Church speaking with a united voice.

Well I would say we can still communicate with them and this is what the Apostles Creed meant when it was written even if it's been redefined by Protestants since then.

[SoccerLOTR]

Ok, I guess I shouldn't call it a "board" but I really don't know what else to call it without using a sentence to describe. They spoke and represented the general church views at the time, but as I said, I don't think that makes their words authoritative. Besides, it's fairly similar to the Apostle's Creed, so I don't know why it would be considered a better summary of beliefs--because that's all it is. Ah well. Just my opinion. I'm not sure about what it originally meant, but if that's true, I hold to the present view of what it means rather than the past view.

[John Chrysostom]

Well I would say they were authoritative so there in lies our disagreement over the Creeds. But I can see where you're coming from and can agree that wording wise they are very similar.

[TigerintheShadows]

So your church has no traditions or order of service?

We're Southern Baptist...I'm not sure we even have any traditions, besides baptism and communion.

You also reject any of the Creeds generally accepted by most denominations such as the Nicene or Apostles?

We do not. We had at one point, if I remember right, a sort of series dealing with the Apostle's Creed. It isn't that we reject it; we just don't refer to it or the Nicene every other service.

Also did I understand you correctly when you said baptism is an extra?

Not really something "extra." I apologize; I failed to elaborate. What I mean by this is that yes, we are called upon to get baptized and yes, we are called upon to go to church, but adding one of those things to Jesus or believing that those things alone save you isn't correct theology--because you can't add to Jesus, and He alone saves us.

Also how are books on systematic theology any different than doctrines or traditions held by a denomination?

They aren't far off from one another, at any rate. I admit, I wasn't thinking about the miscellaneous creeds and things when I first posted...I was interpreting "extra" to mean "adding things onto the Gospel."

[John Chrysostom]

You're Southern Baptist there's a tradition right there; you're part of a denomination.

Well not referring to it every week isn't rejecting it and if you accept it then that's another tradition.

I never meant to imply anything more than believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved; that is the bedrock of Christianity. However I also believe that our relationship with Christ is not just a one time thing but an ongoing dynamic relationship and that things like being baptized, going to Church, taking part in communion are all things that will bring us closer to Christ.

[Josef1004]

That would depend on what you mean by "Christian". What is a Christian? How do you define, "a Christian"?

[TigerintheShadows]

A person who confesses that Jesus is Lord and believes in his heart that God raised Him from the dead--as Paul says it, this is how we are saved. We can't be saved if we are not a Christian, right? So by the transitive property of doctrinal truth, a Christian is one who confesses and believes.

(Sorry to bump an old thread--just felt the need.)

[John Chrysostom]

But Mormons believe those things, so do Jehovah Witnesses, so do Christian Scientist, so did Marcionism, so did Montanus, so did Nestorianism, so did the Gnostics, so did the Arians, so did countless other heresies in the Early Church yet they are not Christians.

[Christian A.]

I agree, Ayn. We can't just take one verse in the Bible and use it to totally define our doctrine of salvation from it. That's what systematic theology is all about. We have to look at all that Scripture says on the subject and use everything together to define what a true Christian should have a basic understanding of.

[TigerintheShadows]

But do they believe that this is exclusively what saves? This and nothing else? Or does 'good works' or 'circumcision' or 'baptism' tie into it.

[John Chrysostom]

I also think that systematic theology should take into account more than just Scripture but also everything that has been Divinely inspired, including (IMO) Apostolic Teachings. And I think doing that gives us a definition the Nicene Creed. http://www.goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/creed

Tiger: That's a good point I don't know if they believe that is what exclusively saves them but like I've said before very few believe in this and nothing else. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved but if you do that and only that then your faith is dead without works, I and most Christians would say that true belief will result in actions, not that those are necessary for salvation but they are the normative outcome of a relationship with Christ.

[TigerintheShadows]

Yes, but the point is, works don't save. I'm not saying don't do good works. I'm saying that you can't tack that onto Jesus. And pretty much every religion that isn't Christianity but includes Jesus involves good works equaling redemption.

[John Chrysostom]

I didn't say works save, I said that faith without works is dead.

Also you say that a Christian has to believe that Jesus is Lord. Could that statement include the Nestorian view that there isn't union between Christ's two natures? Or could it include Arian's view that Christ is created? To me those are important distinctions to make and the Nicene Creed includes several other important doctrinal points that have to be believed to be a Christian.