Primary Doctrines Versus Secondary Doctrines?

[jriccitelli]

I am more blunt than most, but in a loving way; I will sometimes ask another believer 'Why are you a Christian?' the answer is sometimes affirming and sometimes disconcerting. I use to spend a lot of time evangelizing Mormons, and after that, I found most every non-believer has nearly the same hang-up; they don’t believe.
They don’t believe they are a sinner, thus they don’t believe they need a savior.
If they acknowledge they are a sinner, they may still not believe there is a judgment.

It always seems to boil down to these, and although it would seem easy to simply repent and believe these two biblical truths, people always try to skirt around what the Bible (God) says on these 'two' issues, and they find cults, isms, other religions and philosophies comforting because everything other than 'biblical' Christianity allows them to feel they are right about themselves as long as they are a part of this other group.

Every group other than biblical Christianity is non biblical Christianity.
People start groups because they do not accept what the Bible says (i.e. Joseph Smith, Rutherford, Mary Baker, Mohammed, even Catholicism developed due to adherence to their own extra biblical system, rather than the Bible)

The Serpent made up the lie, Eve believed the lie, and Adam became her follower.
It is the same way with false gods, false religions, false beliefs, and their followers.
This is all a test, the tree in the garden was a test. Yet some will say; "well, God is simply teaching us a principle, he doesn't really mean what He said about death and all that, why don’t you join our church were we don’t get all hung up on believing what God said"

Still, being that it is a test, does not make the Serpents word true, and Gods Word a lie.

I find that people will 'say they believe' in Jesus but if after a few questions I find out they don’t really believe they are a sinner, and that they do not really believe in a judgment (well maybe there is a judgment for really bad people, but not for people like us), what is it then that they are believing?
Do they believe what 'they' want to believe, or do they believe what God has said?

Sure many people in religious systems and variants of Christianity don’t have any opportunity to think for themselves, but I find what 'religious people' believe to be of 'very little' difference than what a person of no religious convictions believes, the only difference is that a person in a religious system has nearly cemented his belief to a false one.

I find a religious persons belief to be of zero value if they; one do not believe they are a sinner, and two if they do not believe there is a judgment. (And Karma is a development, not really a judgment)

The first thing I teach new believers is the doctrine of the importance of Gods Word in our life, if I can establish that my work is half done (James 1:18-23, 1 Peter 1:22-25, Psalm 119 etc.). Next I focus on the doctrines taught in Genesis 1-6.
It seems self evident that Gods Word is of great importance, but since the lie is that Gods Word is not important, I have to work extra hard to reinforce the belief that Gods Word is sensible, relevant, true and that it is Life.

I believe conduct is important for the believer, but I believe Godly conduct comes from knowing what 'God' considers Good behavior, and that results from knowing, trusting and loving His Word, and He is the Word. Our behavior is a result of knowing God, and thus it should result in us being the salt of the earth, a city on a hill, a shining light, so 'as' we believe Gods word, people will follow us along. And not do as Adam did, believing something to please his wife, or family rather than believe Gods Word.

I have found that other issues are most always secondary. I want to first understand their belief about sin, punishment, and the importance of His Word in their life. These are my primary concerns regarding a persons status with Him, regardless of how many other mistaken notions they may have about Him, since these two will usually define the rest of their notions or beliefs about Gods Word.

[darinhouston]

jriccitelli, It seems to me that many cults are created by people who are fleeing error or some hyper-legalism or some other corruption or unhealthy imbalance of Christianity which makes something (anything) of more fundamental importance than following Jesus and seeking to do His and the Father's will. If someone is in error while honestly striving to do that, I tend to think God's mercy and grace are sufficient.

[anochria]

wow. thanks for the response. i'm just now checking in out. i'm teaching on this subject this coming Sunday so it's quite helpful. nice to get outside input for our community.

[Paidion]

So why are you a Christian, JR?
Or are you one?
What IS a Christian, anyway — as you see it?

[jriccitelli]

Since I ask the question, sometimes it gets asked back to me;

Personally I lived life as if God was not even here nor there, until my life reached a point of despair, and one day I called out to God and He answered me.
I certainly didn’t know Him or much about Him. I had never really stopped to consider who or what God is. I never considered how absolutely powerful and omniscient God is, what He thinks, what He is planning to do, and what He has planned for me. I came to understand that He was giving me a choice. I came to realize I didn’t know Him, and I realized I 'needed' to know Him, because;
1: Logically if God made everything and could do anything; ‘I should fear Him’, and
2: To ignore my Maker would be very unwise, in this life and the afterlife. To turn my attention towards God would, logically, have to be the greatest priority in life, both for sanity and sense in a world of trouble and instability.
To not answer God when He calls seemed to me to be very, very unwise.
3: And at the same time I also admired and was impressed by God, from both the Old Testament and observing Creation around me. And as I read the New Testament I was very amazed and impressed with Jesus’ wisdom and ‘uncommon’ sense, and for this reason I 'wanted' to know Him.

What is a Christian? (Whether or not God chooses to save a Buddhist in China is another thing)
A Christian is one who believes His Word. If someone is believing something not true, then it cannot be of any benefit.
So it makes no difference what you believe if it is not true. When confronted with the truth, our heart is tested, our reaction to real truth is where God makes His judgments. Our heart guides our judgments and God will test our heart.
All truth is Gods truth, and to reject truth is a sin;

"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." (Mark 1:15)
Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God that you believe in Him whom He has sent." (John 6:29)
Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." (John 8:24)
Immediately the boy's father cried out and said, "I do believe; help my unbelief." (Mark 9:24)

The boy's father above showed that although he had not believed everything, he was 'willing' to believe if it was true.
God is not holding you responsible for what you did not know, but He does hold us responsible when we are confronted with truth. Whether it’s the Gospel, or having been given to much change by a clerk, we make a decision, and God makes a decision.
He did not come for the righteous, Jesus came for sinners. Thats is a truth God is willing to respond to.

[anochria]

I might say primary is (1) first and ultimate cause and purpose of the Father;

Darin, I'm not sure what you mean on your #1 here. What is the first and ultimate cause and purpose of the Father in your mind?

[steve]

Darin wil be able to express his own opinions more accurately than I can, but since I agreed with Darin's post, I will tell you how I would understand that phrase.

I think the recognition of God as the first cause and purposeful Creator is the foundation for any Christian belief and for any relationship with God. The Creator/creature relationship recognizes that there is one who made us, and whose purpose and will trumps ours. It provides the philosophical basis for an attitude of humility and surrender. Thus, while theistic evolution as a concept of origins can preserve this element of God's prerogative, naturalistic evolution would be out of the question.

Darin's second point, about Christ's Lordship would grow out of the first. It is God, our Creator, who has appointed Christ to be our monarch, which obligates us to submit to Christ and live to please Him.

To my mind, these are the foundational doctrines that define a Christian. Other details carry more or less importance insofar as they inform us of what God is like, what Christ is like, and what kind of response from us they require.

[anochria]

I think the loaded term "primary or essential doctrines" needs to be unpacked a bit.

One might define primary doctrines as those that need to be believed for salvation. I believe that "list" should be a short one, akin to what some of you are suggesting: belief and reliance on Christ's atoning death, his resurrection, the Lordship of Christ, etc. (Of course even those issues are fraught with complexities)

But on the other hand, when I tend to think of "primary doctrines" I'm not thinking of a litmus test for salvation: I'm thinking of the beliefs and practices and behaviors that should be considered essential to Christianity (or genuine Christian belief). This list would be much bigger for all of us, I think, though we would have even more disagreement on certain points (along the lines of paidion wrote).

[anochria]

Darin wil be able to express his own opinions more accurately than I can, but since I agreed with Darin's post, I will tell you how I would understand that phrase.

I think the recognition of God as the first cause and purposeful Creator is the foundation for any Christian belief and for any relationship with God. The Creator/creature relationship recognizes that there is one who made us, and whose purpose and will trumps ours. It provides the philosophical basis for an attitude of humility and surrender. Thus, while theistic evolution as a concept of origins can preserve this element of God's prerogative, naturalistic evolution would be out of the question.

Darin's second point, about Christ's Lordship would grow out of the first. It is God, our Creator, who has appointed Christ to be our monarch, which obligates us to submit to Christ and live to please Him.

To my mind, these are the foundational doctrines that define a Christian. Other details carry more or less importance insofar as they inform us of what God is like, what Christ is like, and what kind of response from us they require.

OK, I follow you, but why is there no reference to the death of Christ and his resurrection in your "short list"? Seeing as how repentence, the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus, and Jesus' lordship were central to the spreading of the gospel from the get-go? Seems like you're leaving out the most unique element of Christianity.

[steve]

I didn't mean to be omitting the death and resurrection of Christ. These are central to the second point—Christ's Lordship—since it is clear that no one who believes in the historical Jesus would doubt that He died. Though His resurrection would be disputed by non-Christians, it is His resurrection and ascension that declare His Lordship. In my estimation, the preaching of the apostles, unlike much of ours, often passed relatively quickly over the death and resurrection to make the point of the subsequent enthronement of Christ in heaven (e.g. Acts 2:23-24, 32-33; 10:39-42; 13:29-33; Rom.14:9; Phil.2:8-11; etc.). To my mind, the message of the death and resurrection of Christ are essential to the claim that He is Lord. Thus, to me, the acknowledgement of Christ's Lordship includes the belief in His death and resurrection.

Of course, many Christians would include as a necessity, a particular doctrine of how the death of Christ atoned for our sins. Paul's gospel preaching included the affirmation that Christ "died for our sins" (1 Cor.15:3), though, as you know, there have been various theories among Christians as to the import of that phrase "for our sins." Some believe one and some another theory of the atonement—and the one I think I and most evangelicals believe was not even taught, apparently, until the twelfth century. I think there must be room for some discussion and disagreement among Christians as to the exact effects that Christ's dying had upon the problem of sin. The apostolic preaching in Acts never explained how Christ's death accomplished the remission of our sins, and sometimes mentioned Christ's death without making any reference at all to its atoning significance. Strange, I know! It's not what I would have expected, based upon my upbringing.

As far as the necessity of understanding the atonement to be saved is concerned, I am not sure what to hold out for. I think, if a person can sincerely say "I am saved because of Christ's death and resurrection" (no matter what theory he holds as to the functioning of the atoning death of Christ), I can accept that person as being a brother—assuming the other qualifications also are present.

Of course, my acceptance or rejection of the brother need not matter to him. It is not I whose acceptance he needs to obtain. My ability to accept him has more to do with my own spiritual rectitude, since it is I who am on the wrong side if I call "unclean" what God has cleansed. If such a man seems to truly follow Christ, I will assume the best about him.