litmus tests: which of the following beliefs are necessary for real Christians?

[© tweed]

litmus tests: which of the following beliefs are necessary for 'real Christians'?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Historicity of Jesus, Virgin Birth, and literal Resurrection. To those I'd add the Incarnation (i.e. that Jesus is, in some sense, God), although that's to an extent implied by the Virgin Birth.

[The Mikado]

You need to add Jesus' divinity to your list.

[Beet]

Immaculate conception, historical Jesus, Jesus performed the miracles, we are saved through the crucifixion, resurrection, and Jesus' divinity.

[politicus]

Immaculate Conception,
A historical Jesus         
Jesus was born of a virgin Mary     
Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist         
Jesus performed miracles during his ministry as described in the Gospels         
Jesus was crucified for the sins of the world and through his blood we are saved (penal substitution doctrine of atonement)     
bodily/physical resurrection of Jesus and an empty Tomb         
Biblical inerrancy
Jesus return to Earth.

[Mr. Smith]

Definitely not immaculate conception, or are only Catholics, Anglicans, and Episcopalians Christians?

[afleitch]

No room for adoptionists? Western imperialists the lot of you...

[Randy Bobandy]

literal Exodus (but not necessarily a historical Moses), a historical Jesus, Jesus's baptism by John the Baptist, hell as a place of separation from God

briefly converted back to Christianity early october thru early november, and those were the beliefs that i held

[Blue3]

Immaculate Conception means MARY was born without "original sin"... people realize this, right?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Immaculate Conception means MARY was born without "original sin"... people realize this, right?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yeah even the Pope wouldn't vote for Immaculate Conception. Clearly some misunderstanding.

I voted for:

 a historical Jesus
 Jesus was born of a virgin Mary
 Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist
 Jesus performed miracles during his ministry as described in the Gospels
 bodily/physical resurrection of Jesus and an empty Tomb
 literal existence of Heaven

[Del Tachi]

Historical Jesus, Jesus' death as atonement for sin and physical resurrection.

Those are pretty liberal standards for a Southern, conservative Evangelical such as myself.

[palandio]

Western European agnostic here. (I didn't vote in the poll.)

Isn't the sacrifice of Jesus the core of Christianity? The sacrifice as atonement for the sins of humanity? (Which would imply his historical existence and necessarily also the existence of eternal salvation and at least hypothetically the possibility of eternal damnation.)

That seems to me the reason why Jesus Christ is at the center of the Christian faith and is important to the believers.

[bore]

Immaculate Conception means MARY was born without "original sin"... people realize this, right?

Either they don't or the Atlas is more old-school Catholic than BRTD's worst nightmares.

But not too old school, because if they were they might not (like, say, Aquinas) believe in it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

My sense seems consistent with how most others have answered: belief in a historical Jesus, divinely incarnated (which does not require virgin birth), who was crucified and resurrected.

I'm interested in hearing more from the several posters who posit the resurrection as a critical belief, but not the crucifixion. What meaning does the resurrection hold if it is no preceded by sacrifice?

The fact that the poll option specified the penal substitution view is why I didn't vote for it.

[afleitch]

Nothing like a litmus test to cause a theological rammy

[© tweed]

why is Virgin Birth doing so well here?  it enjoys over 50% support, while only 2 of 4 Gospels have an infancy narrative, which are rich in Jewish scriptural allusions and to my mind blatantly a- or un-historical. and Paul seems not to have known or cared about it.

[GaussLaw]

How could someone be a Christian w/o believing in a historical Jesus?

Just wondering.

[TJ in Oregon]

How could someone be a Christian w/o believing in a historical Jesus?

Just wondering.

Gives a whole new meaning to "liberal Christianity"

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My sense seems consistent with how most others have answered: belief in a historical Jesus, divinely incarnated (which does not require virgin birth), who was crucified and resurrected.

I'm interested in hearing more from the several posters who posit the resurrection as a critical belief, but not the crucifixion. What meaning does the resurrection hold if it is no preceded by sacrifice?

The fact that the poll option specified the penal substitution view is why I didn't vote for it.

Me too as well.

[© tweed]

How could someone be a Christian w/o believing in a historical Jesus?

Just wondering.

it wasn't uncommon in certain liberal and post-liberal/existential theological circles.  I don't have the exact quote, but Paul Tillich openly stated that even if Jesus never existed, the myth of the Gospel would not lose any of its power.  alternatively, people like Schweitzer, Bultmann, and even Barth stated that it wasn't possible to know anything of merit about the Historical Jesus.