Five Fundamentals of the (Christian) Faith

[SallyF]

FIVE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE FAITH

There are five fundamentals of the faith which are essential for Christianity, and upon which we agree:
1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8-9).
2. The Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27).
3. The Blood Atonement (Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:12-14).
4. The Bodily Resurrection (Luke 24:36-46; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 15:14-15).
5. The inerrancy of the scriptures themselves (Psalms 12:6-7; Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20). [1]

And those who disagree with any of the above doctrines are not Christians at all. Rather, they are the true heretics. http://www.eaec.org/bibleanswers/five_f ... _faith.htm

As - in my view - Progressive Christians toss more and more ballast out of the hot air balloon of their diminishing faith, more and more the feet of clay upon which the edifices of Christian faith were built are exposed.

Are Progressive Christians "true heretics".

[SallyF]

Progressive Christianity is a heretical group which denies many basic tenets of Christian orthodoxy. https://www.monergism.com/topics/bad-th ... ristianity

And from what I can see, indeed they do.

And I see them denying the tenets for the very same reasons that we New Atheists do

They are quite simply: make-believe.

[SallyF]

The first thing to be jettisoned by liberals is always the divinity of Jesus"and therefore the worship of him. https://www.michaeljkruger.com/10-comma ... r-example/

That's the first lump of foundational ballast out of the hot air balloon of Traditional Christianity.

Heresy in the eyes of Traditionalists who have been believing this for nearly 2,000 years.

And, in my view, the first step towards Atheism.

[Mithrae]

And, in my view, the first step towards Atheism.

Many progressive Christians are atheists. I suppose it's possible that there are some fundamentalist atheists who view religion with the same kind of taboo mindset as fundamentalist Christians view departure from their own orthodoxy, so liberal Christians end up attacked from both sides.

[SallyF]

The doctrine of the virgin birth was among the first to be questioned and then rejected after the rise of historical criticism and the undermining of biblical authority that inevitably followed. https://www.ligonier.org/blog/must-chri ... gin-birth/

There's another one over the side to try and keep a lighter Christianity flying.

"Not true Christians" the Traditionalist say. "Heretics" they say.

It was good enough to believe for 2,000 years, but when things get a bit tough, toss it over the side and still claim to be a Christian.

Jesus will understand.

[SallyF]

And, in my view, the first step towards Atheism.

Many progressive Christians are atheists. I suppose it's possible that there are some fundamentalist atheists who view religion with the same kind of taboo mindset as fundamentalist Christians view departure from their own orthodoxy, so liberal Christians end up attacked from both sides.

Wow !

I was asked not to refer to Progressive Christians as quasi-Atheists.

I shall have to refer to them as Atheist Christians, or should that be Christian Atheists ?

I am reminder of the visitor to Belfast, who, when asked what religion he was, declared that he was an Atheist. "Yes, but are you a Protestant Atheist or a Catholic Atheist ?" came the reply.

We can attach whatever labels we want to ourselves and strut them prouldly, but there will be other folks who consider the labels illegitimate.

Then we get into the whole "True Scotsman" business.

The obvious point of the OP here is to discuss just how much of the very foundations and fabric of 2,000 years of Christianity can be tossed out of the sinking hot air balloon, and still call it Christianity.

Some folks say NONE of the above five fundamentals can be ejected.

You have declared that some folks think they can legitimately heave them ALL over the side and still call themselves "Christian".

However, no true Atheist would ever accept ANY of them

[SallyF]

Jesus as a human sacrifice just isn't selling these days.

So, "scripture" or not, over the side it goes .

Extreme heresy, according to those who follow 2,000 years of accepting that:

Jesus Christ, the one perfect God-man, came to offer the pure, complete and everlasting sacrifice to make payment for our sin. Hebrews chapters 8-10 beautifully explain how Christ became the eternal High Priest, entering heaven (the Holy of Holies), once and for all, not by the blood of sacrificial animals, but by his own precious blood on the cross. Christ poured out his life in the ultimate atoning sacrifice for our sin and the sins of the world.

In the New Testament, the blood of Jesus Christ, therefore, becomes the foundation for God's new covenant of grace. At the Last Supper, Jesus said to his disciples: This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. (Luke 22:20, ESV)

Beloved hymns express the precious and powerful nature of the blood of Jesus Christ. https://www.learnreligions.com/blood-of-jesus-700166

Please note that the Jesus character is described here as a God-man. Demi-gods are found in many, many cultures, and many, many Christians accept that only their Jesus is a "real" one, and everyone else's god-man is just heathen superstition.

But anyhow, Atheist Christians have tossed all that sort of stuff over the side to try and keep the balloon aloft.

[Mithrae]

Many progressive Christians are atheists. I suppose it's possible that there are some fundamentalist atheists who view religion with the same kind of taboo mindset as fundamentalist Christians view departure from their own orthodoxy, so liberal Christians end up attacked from both sides.

Wow !

I was asked not to refer to Progressive Christians as quasi-Atheists.

I shall have to refer to them as Atheist Christians, or should that be Christian Atheists ?

There's a difference between many and all, or even most...

The obvious point of the OP here is to discuss just how much of the very foundations and fabric of 2,000 years of Christianity can be tossed out of the sinking hot air balloon, and still call it Christianity.


Some folks say NONE of the above five fundamentals can be ejected.

Your 'five fundamentals' were defined as such only in the early 20th century. Notably, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy was a 19th century development. Neither the 4th century Nicene Creed nor the 'Apostles Creed' say anything about that doctrine; nor do either of them explicitly define doctrines of blood atonement or Jesus' bodily/physical resurrection. Bit of a funny oversight, for these primary creeds to overlook three of those five points if they were truly fundamental, don't you think? In fact, a read-through of 1 Corinthians 15 suggests a very strong possibility that Paul believed in a spiritual rather than flesh and blood resurrection of Jesus. Similarly long before the advent of those two creeds there were Christians, such as the Jewish-Christian Ebionites, who rejected the divine Jesus which Johnny-come-lately 'apostle' Paul preached to the pagans. Not a single one of those five 'fundamentals' has ever been universally accepted among Christians, least of all in the early church prior to state-backed efforts to create a homogenous 'orthodoxy.'

You have declared that some folks think they can legitimately heave them ALL over the side and still call themselves "Christian".

However, no true Atheist would ever accept ANY of them

Perhaps not, but many atheists can and do accept the psychological core around which biblical narratives and Christian experience often seem to revolve (with or without the associated religious jargon):
- Humility in the face of the universe/god
- The centrality of love
- The inevitability of shortcomings and failure (sin)
- The necessity of grace and forgiveness (redemption)
- The value of transformative experience and a 'new life' (salvation)
- The importance of personal commitment and action (faith)

No doubt many Greeks believed that Icarus really did fly too high: Perhaps in another thread we can learn from our outraged atheist friends about the heretical Hellenists who have ditched that pointless make-believe doctrine from a sinking ship, and we can nod and smile and politely try not to point out how obviously and wildly they are missing the point.

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 17 by Mithrae]

Bit of a funny oversight, for these primary creeds to overlook three of those five points if they were truly fundamental, don't you think?

Indeed I do.

It bolsters my point that Humpty Dumpty writes Christian dogma/doctrine/beliefs/creeds/whatevers, and things can mean just whatever he CHOOSES them to mean.

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 17 by Mithrae]

Perhaps not, but many atheists can and do accept the psychological core around which biblical narratives and Christian experience often seem to revolve

A major part of the "psychological core" is common-sense, down-to-earth humanism.

A major part of the "psychological core" of Judaism and it's offshoot Christianity, is to hate your neighbours and slaughter them and keep their virgin girls for yourself and take their land, because you are "God's" "chosen people", and other equally misanthropic, homophobic, misogynous, believe or you'll burn in the flames of Hell, and by the way Jesus is going come back and kill you with fire and hail mingled with blood.

You didn't mention those.

Things always look better when one omits the bits one knows are just bad.

Humility in the face of the universe/god
- The centrality of love
- The inevitability of shortcomings and failure (sin)
- The necessity of grace and forgiveness (redemption)
- The value of transformative experience and a 'new life' (salvation)
- The importance of personal commitment and action (faith)

This New Atheist does not accept your notions here of Sin, Redemption, Salvation, Faith.

It just looks to me like Humpty Dumpty has been scrambled and turned into a fluffy, palatable omelette that doesn't look like an egg/Christianity anymore.

Because, as I keep pointing out, Atheist Christians just don't like the look of the Christianity of their grandparents, and they are desperately trying to blow hot air into the plummeting balloon.

[SallyF]

Are Progressive Christians "true heretics".

A heretic, like a witch, is somebody's flawed description of somebody else, with the occasional unfortunate result that the person is burned or drowned.

Christianity with its hydra heads is a psychological mess of ideas: death is the beginning, torture of one's son is the highest love, pain is good, pleasure is evil. Nothing is so absurd that it cannot find for itself some Scriptural justification. A heretic is best seen through the rifle sights of any particular Christian set.

Mithrae claims: "many atheists can and do accept the psychological core around which biblical narratives and Christian experience often seem to revolve".

Marco - and THIS New Atheist - see the heads of the countless versions of Christianity that thrust anew from the wounded monster as full of psychological mess.

And each head thinks that IT has got it right and all the OTHER heads are heretical.

I suggest that (no matter what other descriptions can be applied) one of the descriptions that must be applied to the Christian monster as a whole, is that of "psychological mess".