Christianity: A Summary

[sojourner]

The goal here is to cleary define and enumerate the original, precise, and historical Christianity, as begun by the Founder, continued by His disciples, and extending throughout history as a continuous ideological belief

Why not simply quote RCC and EO doctrine? Because that’s what it is: begun by Jesus, continued by the apostles and extended by Apostolic Succession. Yet your version doesn’t read like RCC or EO doctrine at all.

 

[sojourner]

I have thought of others who have tried to 'define' Christianity, over the years.. There are some recent ones, like John Stott, who wrote the book 'Basic Christianity' back in 1958. Then there is Bill Bright, the founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, who penned the '4 spiritual laws'. I do notice a common thread in their 'summaries' as well.

From the index of 'Basic Christianity'.
PART ONE: CHRIST'S PERSON
2 The Claims of Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3 The Character of Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4 The Resurrection of Christ . . . . . . . . . . 57
PART TWO: MAN'S NEED
5 The Fact and Nature of Sin . . . . . . . . . . 77
6 The Consequences of Sin . . . . . . . . . . . 89
PART THREE: CHRIST'S WORK
7 The Death of Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
8 The Salvation of Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
PART FOUR: MAN'S RESPONSE
9 Counting the Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
10 Reaching a Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
11 Being a Christian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Here is the '4 Spiritual Laws' by Bill Bright, written in 1952
1. God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life.
2. Man is sinful and separated from God. Therefore, he cannot know and experience God's love and
plan for his life.
3. Jesus Christ is God's only provision for man's sin. Through Him you can know and experience
God's love and plan for your life.
4. We must individually receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord; then we can know and experience
God's love and plan for our lives.

And in 1909, R.A. Torrey edited a large compilation in a set called 'The Fundamentals'. They put these 5 as the 'basics' for christianity.

1. The Trinity: God is one "What" and three "Whos" with each "Who" possessing all the attributes of Deity and personality.
2. The Person of Jesus Christ: Jesus is 100% God and 100% man for all eternity.
3. The Second Coming: Jesus Christ is coming bodily to earth to rule and judge.
4. Salvation: It is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
5. The Scripture: It is entirely inerrant and sufficient for all Christian life.

All of these, it seems to me, carry a similar 'look & feel' on the basics. Some of them add some unnecessary 'beliefs', but like my list, are implied in the actual act of salvation with the believer.

I remind everyone that this is not a list of mandated beliefs, but merely a definition of what 'Christian', is. The central message & mission of Jesus should be the standard for the term, so the basis for His teachings, & the central points have to provide that standard. Certainly, anything CONTRARY to what Jesus taught cannot be called 'christian', but would be considered 'non- christian', or even 'anti-christian'.

None of those exhibit a theological development consistent with historic Xy.

 

[sojourner]

What is it then? What about the entire city of old Jerusalem? Are you trying to say the Jews never existed and that the Moors built everything?

No, the Moops built everything.

 

[sojourner]

It seems to me, that the Founder, His early followers, and the recorders of the words and events surrounding the dawning of Christianity would have more credibility in defining the movement/worldview they began, than revisers of history millennia removed from the events

But the Movement was never intended to be preserved as-is. It was meant to develop over time. We are called, just as surely as the 12 were called, to live the tenets in the world in which we live. Therefore, the modern successors (bishops) are as authoritative as the 12 in that regard. Historic Xy is a living thing.

 

[usfan]

No 'god' has ever shown up when I have suggested it do so,

You can conclude what you want, about 'no response'.

The circumstantial evidence may suggest such a god hopefully might exist in reality, but if there were one dominant 'god' over the millennia as you suggest, surely think this would be a different world.

This is not a 'proof of God!' thread, but a definition of historical Christianity.

I believe this is not true and that there is no way to prove such a thing......

Everybody believes something.

The earliest Xtian Tradition was not limited to biblical precept, but relied on the precepts of Apostolic leadership.

Well, duh. The apostles (and their associates) had to write the NT, before it took precedence over leadership. Once the Apostolic Testimonies were in place, they overrode any teachings or claims to the contrary.

The creeds also present a departure from earliest Xy.

..not at all. The early creeds and statements of faith ALL AFFIRMED the apostolic teachings and precedents. Irenaeus, Athanasius, Jerome, the Nicaean Council.. ALL of the earliest records and evidence supports, affirms, and confirms the clear, unadulterated, pure tenets of the Christian faith.

There is NO EVIDENCE of any departures or 'change!' in the early xtian church.

None of those exhibit a theological development consistent with historic Xy.

So you keep asserting, without evidence. I have provided quotes from the earliest Christian writers, apologists, and fathers about what they saw as the core tenets of Christianity, and that has remained constant and consistent throughout the millennia.

But the Movement was never intended to be preserved as-is.

Of course it was. 'Against Heresies?' The whole point of Irenaeus' voluminous writings was to DEFEND and PRESERVE orthodoxy from deceptive heresies. Jerome, Athanasius, and countless others continued that practice, to this day.

No, the historical evidence is overwhelming. Christianity has an exact, precise, and historical definition, preserved by the earliest apostles and church fathers with undisputed evidence.

Departures, 'inspired by!' copies, and offshoots have been legion, and also are to this day. But they do not invalidate or diminish the accuracy and historicity of the original.

 

[sojourner]

Well, duh. The apostles (and their associates) had to write the NT, before it took precedence over leadership. Once the Apostolic Testimonies were in place, they overrode any teachings or claims to the contrary

The authority has always been threefold: Scripture, Tradition, and reason. The Bible is part of the Apostolic Tradition, and does not stand separate from it. The texts have been given primacy, but not precedence.

There is NO EVIDENCE of any departures or 'change!' in the early xtian church

I give you the argument between Paul and the Church in Jerusalem as evidence very early on. The apostles in Jerusalem taught that converts must be circumcised. Paul argued that that need not happen. Soon, Gentile converts were not mandated for circumcision. That represents a CHANGE in the early church.

So you keep asserting, without evidence. I have provided quotes from the earliest Christian writers, apologists, and fathers about what they saw as the core tenets of Christianity, and that has remained constant and consistent throughout the millennia

I’m looking at your list, and very few of them appear in the Nicene Creed, which for centuries has served as the “basic tenets” of faith. And you neglected to include it. Early writers may have taught those things, but they are not the “core” of the faith, as originally taught.

Of course it was. 'Against Heresies?' The whole point of Irenaeus' voluminous writings was to DEFEND and PRESERVE orthodoxy from deceptive heresies. Jerome, Athanasius, and countless others continued that practice, to this day.

Heresy doesn’t constitute a progressive, theological development; rather, it represents a radical departure. That argument won’t wash.

No, the historical evidence is overwhelming. Christianity has an exact, precise, and historical definition, preserved by the earliest apostles and church fathers with undisputed evidence.

Until later successor redefined some things in an ongoing progression of development. Several subsequent leaders have brought the Faith forward, such that the Faith remains relevant to people of every age of humanity.

Departures, 'inspired by!' copies, and offshoots have been legion, and also are to this day. But they do not invalidate or diminish the accuracy and historicity of the original

There is no “original.” There is only ongoing development — as it should be. Remember, it was the wish of the early Fathers and Mothers that the church should continue in the apostles’ teaching — not to be held in stasis. That’s why the church provided for an Apostolic Succession that leads us to this day.

 

[usfan]

The authority has always been threefold: Scripture, Tradition, and reason. The Bible is part of the Apostolic Tradition, and does not stand separate from it. The texts have been given primacy, but not precedence.

And the reformation emphasized the scriptures, as the final authority, in any disputes over orthodoxy. Even the Roman Catholic church 'reformed' from that time.

Sola Scriptura..

I give you the argument between Paul and the Church in Jerusalem as evidence very early on. The apostles in Jerusalem taught that converts must be circumcised. Paul argued that that need not happen. Soon, Gentile converts were not mandated for circumcision. That represents a CHANGE in the early church.

That is not a change, but a correction. Jesus brought the 'change!', with the New Covenant. It was no longer based on Judaic Law, but the indwelling Spirit.. direct knowlege of God.

Jer.31:31“The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them, ”
declares the Lord.
33“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest

Some of the early Christians (who were Jews), believed that keeping the Law of Moses was part of the New Covenant. A correction was needed, and occurred through Peter, to emphasize the new covenant.

Many attempts of legalism have been made on Christianity, over the millennia, and they have always been rebuffed. Grace, not Law, is the new covenant, and the early church emphasized that.

I did not emphasize this in the summary, but it is part of the redemption process.

Redemption
God made provision for the rebellion of man. Even though man's sins and corruption were contrary to the standard and nature of God, He provided a Way of escape from the coming reckoning. He became a man, Himself, and took the penalty for all of man's sins, if they will receive it. God appeared in the person of Jesus, and revealed the nature of God. He outlined the process of redemption, for those who would accept it. It is a spiritual transaction that has been likened to rebirth, or going from darkness to light. It is a quickening of the soul, where the lost human is awakened to the perception of spiritual reality. It usually involves acknowledging God and the atonement of Jesus, repentance for past wrongs, and the reception of God's Spirit into the redeemed soul. It is a very personal transaction, and transforms the life of the recipient.

This has been emphasized and corrected numerous times, over the millennia.

I’m looking at your list, and very few of them appear in the Nicene Creed, which for centuries has served as the “basic tenets” of faith. And you neglected to include it. Early writers may have taught those things, but they are not the “core” of the faith, as originally taught.

I did post the Nicene Creed, in post #15, on the first page of this thread:

Here are a few other 'summaries', or statements/clarifications of faith, regarding the Christian worldview.

Paul the Apostle:
1Cor15:3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance a : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, b and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Apostle's Creed:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son Our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead;
He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.
Amen.

Nicene Creed:
We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again with glory
to judge the living and the dead.
His kingdom will never end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life.
He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
He spoke through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look forward to the resurrection of the dead,
and to life in the world to come. Amen

There would be many more, but this is a few of the earliest ones..

I will leave it to the reader to 'see' affirmations or contradictions.

 

[sojourner]

And the reformation emphasized the scriptures, as the final authority, in any disputes over orthodoxy. Even the Roman Catholic church 'reformed' from that time.

The Reformation took it too far. That’s why those churches in the Apostolic Succession” don’t embrace sola scriptura. It doesn’t fit the trajectory, but represents a departure from it.

That is not a change, but a correction

A nuance that’s not corroborated in the texts. The Apostles In Jerusalem held That one must become a Jew before becoming a Christian. “Not becoming a Jew” does represent a change on the part of some.

Jesus brought the 'change!', with the New Covenant. It was no longer based on Judaic Law, but the indwelling Spirit.. direct knowlege of God.

Jesus was a Jew, and never claimed to be otherwise.

 

[usfan]

The Reformation took it too far. That’s why those churches in the Apostolic Succession” don’t embrace sola scriptura. It doesn’t fit the trajectory, but represents a departure from it.
A nuance that’s not corroborated in the texts. The Apostles In Jerusalem held That one must become a Jew before becoming a Christian. “Not becoming a Jew” does represent a change on the part of some.
Jesus was a Jew, and never claimed to be otherwise.

The new covenant can be viewed as a departure, or the continuance of the original intent. Christian scholars have, for millennia, seen the fulfilment of the promise of the Messiah in Jesus. That claim has been constant in Christianity from the beginning.

John 4:25The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”
26Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.”

Every creed, statement of faith, and defense of Christianity, from the earliest time, affirms Jesus as the watched for Jewish messiah.

The only record of the words, life, and mission of Jesus are from the apostolic beginnings.. writings and orthodox teaching from the earliest known sources. ..aka, the bible. Scriptura.

In the multitude of tangents, departures, and offshoots that have accompanied historical Christianity, we can see the 'not Christianity'. It helps us to define True Christianity, by contrast.

Your central argument seems to be, 'Christianity can be whatever anyone wants'. I see no evidence for that view. I see an historical, precise definition of the ideology brought by the Messiah, and it has been faithfully handed down for over 2000 years. It has not changed. The Life giving message of Redemption still Animates the souls of lost humanity. The offshoots and departures have no effect on the power of the Gospel message, pumping life and rejuvenation to those who seek Truth.

No, the Gospel has not changed or varied since man first understood the message of redemption.

 

[sojourner]

Every creed, statement of faith, and defense of Christianity, from the earliest time, affirms Jesus as the watched for Jewish messiah

A Jewish Messiah for a Jewish people. Paul’s evangelization of the Gentiles without mandating them to become Jewish, and subsequent shift in focus from a Jerusalem, Judaic-based Movement to a Greek focus on becoming a religion separate from Judaism does represent a change, whether you like it or not.

The only record of the words, life, and mission of Jesus are from the apostolic beginnings.. writings and orthodox teaching from the earliest known sources. ..aka, the bible. Scriptura

And those words, life and mission were passed down orally —strictly through the Tradition of the church leaders, until the writing was finally accomplished between 40-90 years after the fact. Even then, until the Bible appeared in its common form 450 years after the fact, the events were still transmitted mostly orally. IOW, it’s the Tradition — of which the texts are part — that has historically been the main purveyor of the Faith.

Your central argument seems to be, 'Christianity can be whatever anyone wants

No, my central argument is the the propagation of the historic and orthodox faith has been (and is) accomplished by those who stand in the Apostolic Succession.

No, the Gospel has not changed or varied since man first understood the message of redemption

Actually, it has, but you’ll probably fudge and call it a “correction.”

Read Galatians. It tells how redemption shifts between the Judaic covenants and the Christocentric covenant.

 

[usfan]

historic and orthodox faith has been (and is) accomplished by those who stand in the Apostolic Succession.

Apostolic Succession is a myth, perpetuated by controllers and manipulators trying to turn Christianity into a means of personal gain. Jesus left His Words, and the testimonies of the apostles. I see no indication that he organized a human institution to build His church. That is the flawed perception of His exchange with Peter:

Matt.16:13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

This was a play on words.. a contrast, between
Πέτρος, 'Peter', ..pebbles; and,

ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ, 'this, The Rock'.. a Boulder.

It was the CONFESSION and recognition (belief and embracing) of the MESSIAH, that was the 'this' upon which Christ would build His church.

I acknowledge that many believe in apostolic succession very sincerely. But it is putting trust in fallible man, that Jesus warned us not to do:

Matt.23:7they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.
8“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers.9And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
13“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. [14]

Jesus did not establish a heirarchy of priesthood. There is no pope, or ecclesiastical structure of authority. The Standards of the scriptures are the only and final authority for faith and life. Any instruction or edification is from a friend.. a sibling.. an equal.. in the Household of God.

This is reformed theology, and was a correction for Christianity 500 yrs ago. Even the Roman Catholic church now agrees to the authority of scripture.

The warning from Jesus is very clear.. beware of pharisees.. they will lead you astray with phony religious posturing, but they are whitewashed tombs. Beware, lest you shut the door and impede entry into the Kingdom of God.

The servant of the church is the greatest, not elites in a corporate structure.

 

[sojourner]

This is reformed theology

I said at the outset that your so-called “historic” essentials were reformed in nature. That word “re-form” means to ... change... an original something. Only a reformist would deny the Apostolic Succession as being a historic carrier for orthodoxy. Reformed Xy is no more orthodox than Bevis and Butthead. Its claim to return to the “real” “true” faith is no more authentic than a medicine show nostrum. And for the record, I already addressed the primacy-of-scripture issue.

The servant of the church is the greatest, not elites in a corporate structure

Shows what you know. Historically, ordination is, at its base, a servant ministry. That’s why clergy traditionally wear the stole. It’s reminiscent of the servant’s towel that Jesus wrapped around himself when he washed the disciples’ feet. No one is more a servant of the church than its clergy. Unless you’re a Reformist with a radio show...

No, I’m afraid your Reformist-dogma-masquerading-as-orthodoxy won’t wash here. You’re not fooling anyone except yourself.

 

[usfan]

No, I’m afraid your Reformist-dogma-masquerading-as-orthodoxy won’t wash here. You’re not fooling anyone except yourself.

Well, since our 'discussion' seems to consist of me posting historical quotes and rational arguments , and you responding with unevidenced dismissal, ad hom, and assertions, i see no point in continuing. My wimpy summary is congruent with most creeds, statements, and summaries throughout xtian history, beginning with the earliest ones. You have not refuted that.

You can believe whatever you want. You can invent your own version of Christianity, and start your own cult. You can revise history, and relabel heresies as orthodoxy. But it does not change the original Message, that Jesus brought to a dying world. It is THAT message, that is the focus of this thread.

 

[JJ50]

Well, since our 'discussion' seems to consist of me posting historical quotes and rational arguments , and you responding with unevidenced dismissal, ad hom, and assertions, i see no point in continuing. My wimpy summary is congruent with most creeds, statements, and summaries throughout xtian history, beginning with the earliest ones. You have not refuted that.

You can believe whatever you want. You can invent your own version of Christianity, and start your own cult. You can revise history, and relabel heresies as orthodoxy. But it does not change the original Message, that Jesus brought to a dying world. It is THAT message, that is the focus of this thread.

As I have said boringly often, there is no evidence that chap Jesus was anymore than a character created by the gospel writers, as what is attributed to him is not credible.

 

[dfnj]

I have been a student of Christian history and the Bible for over 45 years.

Friedrich Nietzsche had some acute criticisms of Christianity. He said Christianity was born in response to Roman oppression. It took hold in the minds of timid slaves who did not have the courage or strength to take what they really wanted. The slaves could not admit to their own failings. So they clung to a philosophy that made virtue of cowardice. Everything the Christians wanted and wished they had in their lives for fulfillment was considered to be a sin. A position in the world, prestige, good sex, intellectual mastery, personal wealth were too difficult or beyond their reach. The Christian slaves created a hypocritical creed denouncing what they really wanted but were incapable of achieving while praising what they did not want was being virtuous. So in the Christian value system sexlessness turned into 'purity', weakness became "goodness," submission to authority became "obedience," and in Nietzsche's words, "not-being-able-take-revenge" turned into "forgiveness." A Christian slave was too weak to have any personal voice and was only capable of bending a knee to whoever was in authority.

 

[usfan]

As I have said boringly often, there is no evidence that chap Jesus was anymore than a character created by the gospel writers, as what is attributed to him is not credible.

Friedrich Nietzsche had some acute criticisms of Christianity. He said Christianity was born in response to Roman oppression. It took hold in the minds of timid slaves who did not have the courage or strength to take what they really wanted. The slaves could not admit to their own failings. So they clung to a philosophy that made virtue of cowardice.

Believe whatever you want..
Im just defining historical Christianity, here..

But in this forum, almost every thread is a 'bash Christianity and the Christians!', thread, so these replies are not off topic..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Believe whatever you want..
Im just defining historical Christianity, here..

But in this forum, almost every thread is a 'bash Christianity and the Christians!', thread, so these replies are not off topic..

No, you are merely defining your sort of Christianity, not all Christianity is or was the same.

 

[usfan]

No, you are merely defining your sort of Christianity, not all Christianity is or was the same.

So you keep asserting, with no evidence, quotes, or history. This is just your opinion. You have not supported it.

 

[JJ50]

Christianity is a religion which people create in many different ways to suit themselves. There is no evidence to support any of it, however much some people claim there is.

 

[usfan]

Christianity is a religion which people create in many different ways to suit themselves. There is no evidence to support any of it, however much some people claim there is.

Like i said, believe whatever you want, and assert anything you like.

That is standard debating protocol in Progresso World.