Basically, if you can affirm this you're a Christian:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of 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 arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence 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.

*Small-c catholic, in the original sense of the world, the universal Church.

Anyone but a raving fundamentalist (and there really aren't many of those around) would affirm the salvation of these men--but many would disagree immensely with their theology. It is akin to political liberals' stretching of the Constitution to unrecognizable measures. There is a tradition of Biblical interpretation, and to read into the Bible as if it were a Modernist, humanist document is just as incorrect as reading the Bible as if it were a scientific textbooks, as some ultraconservatives do. Twenty centuries' worth of witness to the Faith condemn the hijacking of the Bible to serve the goals of far-left theologians. If one is no longer willing to accept the Bible as the normative guide for life and practice, one should cease calling oneself a Christian.

So to sum up: Yes, they're Christians -- but that's not their fault.

The Society of Friends (the Quakers) does not require - or ask for - a litmus test along the lines of an affirmation of specific beliefs. That is, with the possible exception of pacifism (and I do not meet that test). Paul is commenting on Christ's life and thought and makes claims about the nature of Christ's divinity. A committee several hundred years later decided to enshrine Paul's opinions... so what? I was saved by grace, not by Paul's letters.

Interesting! Not much is said about the Quakers these days. They are generally thought of as pacifist in the extreme. Yet the absence of litmus tests is admirable. Unitarians are also considered left wing, but I know a libertarian Republican who tells me he feels welcome at the Unitarian Church, even though he disagrees with most of them politically.

Come to think of it, wasn't the hated "war-monger" Richard Nixon (that's the guy who ended the Vietnam War) a Quaker? I'll bet he'd offer some very sage advice for Republicans today.

Here's something he said in the early '90s:

"We have too much bashing of everyone in this party. It's an embarrassment. So many people are gay -- or go both ways. I don't care. I don't want to hear about it. ... I don't go for this outing business. If someone is gay, that's their business, and they should have the right to protect their privacy about it."
--Richard Nixon, according to Monica Crowley's new book Nixon Off the Record.

From: http://www.qrd.org/qrd/world/wockner/quote.unquote/074-09.17.96

Wow!!!! If Nixon said _that_, then he was up there on a level with Goldwater! He's my hero for sure now! I always liked his _style_, but _this_ -- just excellent! Thank you, Mr. President!
(And he did, after all, give us Justice Harry Blackmun: "The right to privacy reflects the moral fact that the individual belongs to himself and not to others or to society." -dissent in Bowers vs. Hardwick, 1986) (just as President Reagan gave us Justice Anthony Kennedy: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life" -Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, quoted also in Lawrence and Garner vs. Texas, June 26, 2003)

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his ony begotten Son, that whosoever beleiveth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16

All Sins have paid for, past, present and future. Paul knew this and taught it also.