Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 7
David says the early Christians had “relatively few defined dogmas,” essentially the Apostles’ Creed, and would find modern fights over atonement “wicked” and “absurd”; what do you think early Christian leaders would identify as the essential confession about Christ’s death (“died for our sins,” “cleansed by his blood,” etc.), and what modern shibboleths would they likely refuse to make tests of fellowship?
Another way to ask: David says early Christians had few official doctrines and would think many atonement fights today are wrong and pointless. What do you think they would say is the core truth to confess about Jesus’ death, and what modern “tests” would they refuse to use to decide who belongs?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
David suggests early Christians would treat as essential that Christ “did die for our sins,” that his death “saved us,” and that we are “cleansed by his blood,” rather than insisting on one detailed atonement mechanism. He implies they would refuse to make fellowship tests out of speculative explanations like penal substitution mechanics or other post-Reformation dogmatic systems.
- He says early Christians had “relatively few defined dogmas” and their statement of faith was “essentially the Apostles' Creed.”
- He insists you won’t find anyone saying, “This is the view, and if you have a different view, you're a heretic.”
- What they’d find essential: “Christ did die for our sins… did thereby save us… we are cleansed by his blood.”
- He says modern division over “mechanics” would be “shocking,” even “wicked,” and denying someone is a Christian for a different theory would be “absurd.”
- He adds they wouldn’t even recognize “atonement” as a term; “they don’t even use that term,” focusing instead on why Christ died and what it accomplished.