One list offers 8 points of essential Christian doctrines:
1. The Trinity,Another boils it down to 5:
2. The Deity of Jesus,
3. Jesus's bodily resurrection,
4. The Atonement as a result of the life, and particularly the death, of Jesus,
5. Personal salvation by grace,
6. The inerrancy of the Bible (based on God's inspiration of the Bible's authors)
7. The virgin birth, and
8. The anticipated Second Coming of Jesus.
1. Authority of the Bible (which includes sola scriptura, inspiration, and inerrancy)And at some point you begin to see the kernel, the hard center of doctrines that make up essential Christianity. For instance, arguing for "the Trinity" and "the Deity of Christ" would be the same thing when the Trinity is properly understood. Assuming the Virgin Birth is a given if the Bible is inerrant. So we settle in with a few core beliefs that are considered "essential" doctrines of the faith.
2. The Deity of Christ (which includes "fully God and fully Man" and the doctrine of the Trinity)
3. Man is sinful and in need of salvation
4. Jesus died a substitutionary atoning death for our sins; and rose bodily from the dead
5. Salvation is by grace through faith
The truth, however, is that there is a massive set of beliefs out there beyond these core beliefs that are ... "non-essentials". We could argue, for instance, that "predestination" is not a "make or break" doctrine between genuine Christians. We would urge each other to allow for liberty. Calvinists and Arminians would heartily disagree on a variety of points, but both, generally, would consider the others Christians, even if they consider them confused on those variety of points. And the call would always be for "charity", both in the sense of loving fellow believers as commanded and in the sense of simply showing charity in discussions with those who disagree with you. Christians do Christianity no favors with nasty, mean-spirited arguments on matters of non-essentials.
The question I have, however, is this: At what point does the non-essential become "essential"? Let me try to illustrate what I'm asking. You don't find "Thou shalt not commit abortion" in the Bible. Now, we believe that the unborn are people and, as such, abortion would be murder. Other Christians, however, might argue that life doesn't occur until they breathe. As such, it wouldn't be murder. And since we don't have a direct command regarding abortion, we would have to urge "liberty" ... right? But then you talk to this person further and find that they don't believe that the Bible finds homosexual behavior to be sin. They will give you an exposition of Scripture to explain why your understanding is wrong and theirs is right (suggesting that they do believe in the essential "inerrancy of the Bible"), but just disagree with your understanding. As you talk further with this person, you begin to accumulate a pile of these types of things. None of them, alone, fall in the category of "essentials". Still, I have to wonder. At some point is there a sufficient accumulation of differences on "non-essentials" that we would begin to suspect that there is a real problem? Is it possible that there would be a sufficient accumulation of differences that, even if they claim an agreement on "essentials", you would have good reason to doubt their Christianity? Here, think of my question like this. Galatians 5 has two lists -- the fruit of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit. Having verified "the essentials" with someone, at some point you begin to notice that their "fruit" seems to be from the list of "the flesh", not "the Spirit". Over time, you suppose, that will change. Instead, it doesn't. Now ... what do you conclude?
At what point does the non-essential become essential? At what point can we or should we begin to question someone's faith? I would argue that we should question the faith of those who don't adhere to the essentials for their benefit. It does them no good to continue down a false road thinking they're on the right path. When does this become a good thing when the accumulation is in non-essentials?
22 comments:
I am of the mine that those with God belong with God. That, as Jesus said, "those who aren't against us are for us." That it's not really the business or duty of Christians to go around saying, "HE's not a Christian."
Where would we get off with such arrogance?
After all, what if we were wrong? What if we were calling a child of God NOT a child of God? Isn't that getting close to blasphemy?
Consider this, Jesus said:
"But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."
Jesus said this in response to the Pharisees, who had called the Holy Spirit by whom Jesus cast out demons an unclean spirit. Isn't calling someone who is living by the Spirit and striving to follow in the steps of Jesus an "unclean spirit" - NOT a christian - a pretty similar thing? That sort of arrogance seems to smack just a little too close to the "unforgivable sin," to me.
As a result, I don't tend to go around deciding who is and isn't a Christian and making those sort of pronouncements.
It's just not my job.
No, in Christianity, I agree - in essentials, unity, in non-essentials, grace. We are just too flawed in our humanity to go around making those sorts of pronouncements.
John said to Him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us."
But Jesus said, "Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me.
"For he who is not against us is for us."
Your lists of "essential tenets" are a bit concerning to me.
The Trinity? I believe it and all, but there is nowhere in the Bible that even comes close to suggesting such a belief as essential.
The Authority/Inerrancy of the Bible? Again, a wholly extrabiblical requirement.
The Virgin Birth? The Second coming?
Again, no where in the Bible is there anything that comes close to suggesting that these are essential beliefs.
I know that such lists float around out there and perhaps have many believers, but I would be concerned about calling those essentials.
I think the creeds (although, being Baptist/anabaptist, I'm not credal) hold the essentials of Christianity fairly well.
"I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come again 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 the life everlasting."
THESE are the essentials (although, again, saying that someone who was saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus who has confessed their sins and made Jesus their Lord, saying to that person, "Because you don't believe in a virgin birth - but you believe all the other stuff - you are not a Christian." I find no biblical basis for that and find it to be arrogant and not of God.
I would find such a judgmental spirit to be more problematic than not believing in a virgin birth.
In fact, if I were to add anything to such a list of essentials, it would be that the presence of a harshly negative judgmental spirit to be a big red flag. (My thinking is that it is the religious in Jesus' day that he especially was critical of, those who laid law upon law and rule upon rule on the people's backs and made their religion all about keeping the right list of rules in the right manner - that such moral preening led some pharisees to call Jesus acts NOT of the Holy Spirit but of the devil.)
I see no reason to think we ought to part ways on lists of sin ("well, I think THIS is sin, but he doesn't, so clearly he isn't a Christian..." - no thanks, too pharisaical sounding to me).
I do think Galatians 5 has much good to consider. For instance...
But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.
A very apt warning considering how Christians too often treat one another.
And I do think it wise to consider that which we ought to avoid...
immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing
Or, these that Paul adds in 2 Cor:
strife, jealousy, angry tempers, disputes, slanders, gossip, arrogance, disturbances
Certainly, those who display these behaviors are not mature in their faith. But in the text, Paul does not say these folk are not Christian. Just immature.
This is one of the reasons I think it is important for those who disagree to have conversations, so we can learn to disagree in love and grace without slander or angry tempers or gossiping. This disagreeing in love is hard and I figure the more I practice it, the better chance I'll have of improving.
On one side of the equation we could hold that unless a person and his life is in alignment with our personal sub-sect of a sub-sect of a denomination, that person is lost. On the other hand, we could simply say that as long as one professes with his mouth a handful of “beliefs”, that person is our brother regardless of what other convoluted views he holds, or activities he engages in. The former seems like a heavy yoke, the other, no yoke at all.
But God did not leave us without discernment, a gift under heavy attack as of late. But consider this passage:
1"I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. 2The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. 3The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice”.
We can conclude three things:
1. Most of the time, we know. And when we’re noooooot really sure, charity is in order.
2. I/we are not the final judge. We live our lives here as aliens and are called to fellowship and act in union with our fellow aliens. We are also told that the chief local will come to us in alien’s clothing, and that he should be rejected. Scripture twisting to accommodate sin and advocating the murder of the least of us are just a couple of the sin du jours of this age given to us by the “thieves and robbers” who did not enter by the gate.
3. We do “here His voice” and we are suspicious when we here the voice of someone who is a little too comfortable here; and unless we are citizens of this dark land, we do not listen, and we do not follow.
Everyone picks and chooses what they perceive as "essential" and discards that which don't believe is relevant. Or, rather, are totally reliant upon past prescribed theologian doctrine.
Your composed lists might fit a fundamentalist Christians and modern evangelicals well, but it's far from authoritative and definitely throughout history, many Christians did not accept all of those.
Regarding Galatians 5, I think the TMNT rendering is beautiful: Legalism is helpless in bringing this about; it only gets in the way. Among those who belong to Christ, everything connected with getting our own way and mindlessly responding to what everyone else calls necessities is killed off for good—crucified.
I think the non-essentials play a larger role than we like to think. I believe the non-essentials say something about what we think about the essentials. I don't know that there is a hard-and-fast number of non-essentials to make one question true belief, but I think that no matter what we say we believe, if our lives don't match the fruit of the Spirit, believing in the essentials is a moot point.
If the non-essentials point to a flawed image of God, that would be a good indicator of a bad accumulation of non-essentials.
Okay, let's see what we have in the Apostles' Creed. We have "God, the Father", "Jesus Christ, God's only Son", and "the Holy spirit". Since this is the fundamental essence of the Trinity ...
Since there is only one Lord, and the creed refers to Jesus as "our Lord", that would affirm the Deity of Christ.
There is no forgiveness of sins if there are no sins to forgive, so Man is sinful and in need of salvation.
The entire "crucified, died, and was buried ... [and] rose again" covers substitutionary atoning death (and the "rose from the dead").
Oh, and by the way, the list of 5 doesn't include "Virgin Birth" ... but the creed does.
Fortunately for everyone, none of this really matters, right? The Bible is not inerrant, and therefore, what you consider "literally correct" will differ from what I consider "literally correct" and, hey, look, it's all a matter of opinion, right? I mean, you've decided that the inerrancy of the Bible is "a wholly extrabiblical requirement". So you have your religion and I have mine. Yours does not include an inerrant Bible; mine does.
The other thing I find odd and, frankly, very confusing is this whole "a judgmental spirit [is] more problematic" thing. You've spent a great deal time explaining how so much of what I have claimed (from Scripture) is ... I guess your current favorite word is "extrabiblical" ... or too literal or bearing false witness or however else you want to say it. It seems that you're pretty judgmental about what I have to write, but you don't want me to be concerned in the least about the eternal well-being of people who may not have a relationship with God.
It is my suspicion that you're taking this post as a personal reference. Just for information, I know more people than just you, and I have a great deal of concern for too many because they often spout "I believe in Jesus" and so very little more. I care about these people and wonder how concerned I should be. You would be most satisfied, it seems, if I simply took them at their word. I would consider that cruel. "You may not be saved and not know it, but, hey, if you go to Hell, that's you're problem. I won't be judgmental!"
Dan Trabue: "But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another."
This principle seems to surface a lot with you. (Mind you, not just you. It's very common all over the place. So let's just set asid the "with you" and go with "seems to surface a lot".) Person A is concerned about the eternal condition of Person B. Person C says, "Why are you biting and devouring one another?" The implication is that it's not possible to be concerned about someone's salvation without being judgmental and intolerant.
Over and over again this comes to the front. "Corporal punishment" is read as "beating children mercilessly" by definition. The parent that affirms spanking as a valid form of training his kids is characterized as angry and cruel. "Firm beliefs" is read as "fundamentalist" (which is not taken as a compliment). It's not possible for the husband to be head of the house without being cruel, domineering misogynist. If I'm concerned about a particular type of sin I must be intolerant and judgmental, not at all thinking about the well-being of the sinner. Truth be told, there are those who use "corporal punishment" as an excuse to beat a child and those with strong beliefs that abuse them and husbands who use the biblical structure as an excuse to abuse their position and people who are more concerned about being judgmental than saving sinners ... but the two sides of these concepts are not absolutely linked. There are other possibilities.
Dan Trabue: "Certainly, those who display these behaviors are not mature in their faith."
Yes, yes, I know. Never question another's faith. They're not mature. Okay. So when Jesus points to people who prophesy and cast out demons and to mighty works in Jesus's name and says, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness", it's okay for Him to be concerned about their condition, but it's not okay for me to share His concern.
Dan, are you happy with that one? (Inside joke between Dan and me.)
I'm reminded of the promise there would be tares among the wheat. The tares resemble wheat very much ... but they're weeds. And while I'm not so interested in rooting out tares ('cause Jesus says that's not my job), I am interested in locating people about whom I care deeply and warning them if I fear for them.
But you're ABSOLUTELY right. We are not the final judge. Fortunately, that has never been my dream.
Naum, I am curious what passage the "TMNT" (I'm also curious what that is) is talking about. I don't find anything like it in Galatians 5.
But that's mere curiosity there. I'm also curious about what you would call "essential". What passes as "minimum for salvation"? The verse you quote sounds like "nothing". I'm sure that's not your position. What is?
Dan Trabue, Naum, (and others that I'm sure I've confused), when I reference "essentials", I'm not talking about "What you have to believe in order to be saved." That's not normally what's in mind when those lists are made at all.
When we consider the "essentials" of the faith, the idea is the core doctrines that make up Christianity. The idea is not so much "Do they believe these core doctrines?" as much as "Do they deny these core doctrines?" The notion is this. Those who have the Holy Spirit, when presented with a core doctrine, will, by the influence of the Spirit, receive that core doctrine as truth. Yeah, yeah, it may take a little bit of teaching/learning/time, but all true believers will agree on the essentials once they're presented and convinced by the Spirit.
How do they get to be "essentials"? These are the things without which Christianity ceases to be Christianity. As an obvious (but actually missed) example, a belief in God is mandatory. You can't be an atheist Christian, or Christianity would lose its meaning. That's the idea. The sin nature of Man, the sinlessness of Christ, His substitutionary atonement for our sin, His resurrection, all of these things make Christianity what it is and Christianity ceases to be without them.
Hope that clears some things up.
Stan said...
Over and over again this comes to the front. "Corporal punishment" is read as "beating children mercilessly" by definition. The parent that affirms spanking as a valid form of training his kids is characterized as angry and cruel. "Firm beliefs" is read as "fundamentalist" (which is not taken as a compliment). It's not possible for the husband to be head of the house without being cruel, domineering misogynist. If I'm concerned about a particular type of sin I must be intolerant and judgmental, not at all thinking about the well-being of the sinner..., etc.
I'm not sure who this is directed towards, but I'm relatively sure it shouldn't be me, since I've never said any of that. I ask, though, because it seems you might be speaking of folk like me and I wonder if it's the case sometimes that you might be "hearing" me say things that I haven't said. For instance, the many times you have accused me of calling you a liar, when in truth, I never have and never intended such. But SOMETHING I wrote made you FEEL like I was calling a liar.
This conversation stuff can be difficult, especially in this format (blog/not face-to-face), and we all need to be careful not to assume the Other means something that they don't.
Leads to too many misunderstandings and, as the Bible notes, we are to make every effort to live at peace with one another.
Dan Trabue, Naum, (and others that I'm sure I've confused), when I reference "essentials", I'm not talking about "What you have to believe in order to be saved." That's not normally what's in mind when those lists are made at all.
Thanks for clarifying, I appreciate it. In my experience, when people bring up essentials that is generally exactly what they mean (ie, "if you don't believe in the essentials, then you are not a Christian." Or even, "If you don't agree with me about this behavior or that approach to reading the Bible, you are not a Christian.")
I'm glad to hear that is not what you mean in this context.
Perhaps, given this quote:
Is it possible that there would be a sufficient accumulation of differences that, even if they claim an agreement on "essentials", you would have good reason to doubt their Christianity?
You can understand how I THOUGHT you were saying that believing in THESE essentials and even some non-essentials can cause one to doubt another's Christianity, since that SOUNDS like what you're saying there to me.
When I find someone who calls himself a "Christian", yet, given the vast amount of Scripture that demonstrates the nature of God to be a tri-unity (Trinity) of three persons of one essence (as an example), denies it, since I know the significance of such a denial, I have ample reason to wonder if they are genuinely a Christian. On the other hand, if I find someone who calls himself a "Christian" and says, "Trinity? What is that?" I don't have that same reason to wonder. I simply think they've never heard it. It is the denial of those "essentials" that makes me question, not the acceptance.
Thus, the "essentials" in my mind define Christianity, of which "salvation" is only a part.
Dan Trabue: "I'm not sure who this is directed towards, but I'm relatively sure it shouldn't be me ..."
You've never said it. You've certainly implied it. You suggested that it's not likely that a parent who uses corporal punishment is doing so out of love. You certainly suggested that a man who reads the Bible to teach a patriarchy (in general) and male headship in the family (in particular) is likely sexist and overbearing.
However, I certainly didn't mean it with you in mind. I think you've done it, but I meant the comments in a much more generic sense. It is a common thing I've seen. You know, like when people say, "All liberals are like ..." because some liberals have done whatever it is.
Stan said...
You've never said it. You've certainly implied it. You suggested that it's not likely that a parent who uses corporal punishment is doing so out of love. You certainly suggested that a man who reads the Bible to teach a patriarchy (in general) and male headship in the family (in particular) is likely sexist and overbearing.
I have not said it nor implied it. You have inferred it, apparently, but it was not my intention to imply it. I might suggest you not try to infer my meaning. If you think I mean "that a parent who uses corporal punishment is [not] doing so out of love," you can ask me, "Is that what you mean?" And then I can correct your misunderstanding and/or my poor explanation and we can have a better understanding of one another.
Fair enough?
Stan said...
When I find someone who calls himself a "Christian", yet, given the vast amount of Scripture that demonstrates the nature of God to be a tri-unity (Trinity) of three persons of one essence (as an example), denies it, since I know the significance of such a denial, I have ample reason to wonder if they are genuinely a Christian.
What IS the biblical or logical "significance of such a denial"? While believing the Trinity is an apt way to describe God's nature, I find nothing hugely significant were someone to not agree with me on the point, and yet was saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus, etc.
The whole point of the inerrancy of Scripture is that we have a basis of which to believe and to believe that what is said is the Word of God, not the ramblings of man. If someone denies the Virgin Birth, and yet Scripture says there was a virgin birth, then the two people are not cannot have a meaningful conversation because the one person's basis of belief disregards the other, not just questions, but utterly denies. If two people can't sit down and say that their source of information is true, then neither has any basis for conversation.
Thanks, David, for hitting the nail on the head.
Dan Trabue: "While believing the Trinity is an apt way to describe God's nature, I find nothing hugely significant were someone to not agree with me on the point."
First, if we believe that the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth, it would seem obvious that ... He would lead us into all truth. While there would be insignificant variations, there wouldn't be significant variations among genuine believers, except as a matter of spiritual maturity.
However, if you reference my comment under Mitigating the Message from 8/02/2009 at 8:20 PM, I point out the significance of "essentials" when it comes to both salvation and Christianity. What difference does it make if they don't agree with the Trinity (for instance)? That becomes a significant difference.
General comment here. Many would like to point to the Trinity as not so important.
I would offer this rebuttal to anyone who suggests that the doctrine of the Trinity is not biblical or that it is peripheral. For those who would like to convince us that "Constantine put the doctrine in place", there is this to consider. It is, in fact, not true that the Trinity came in later. It was always assumed and only became an issue later when heretics refuted it.
According to many bible (including self-proclaimed devout Christians) scholars, early Christians did not have the doctrine of the Trinity.
It took centuries of theological arguments to establish that "consensus".
Multiple sources provide multiple writings of multiple authors from those prior to the Nicean meeting (that famously established as official doctrine the Trinity). The event in the 4th century that "laid it to rest" was simply to do just that -- end the controversy. It was an answer to the Arian heresy. In other words, consensus existed until Arius suggested otherwise.
First, let me say I am not a non-Trinitarian…
But early Christians looked a lot different that our conceptions today.
And those quotes you list, all do not "prove" the matter — saying A, B, and C does not mean A == B == C. There are texts in the Bible (including red words of Jesus) that could give rise to a different interpretation…
I don't know who Michael J. Partyka is or what his scholarship credentials are. I have just finished reading a book by Keith Ward, with an MA from Cambridge and Oxford (and somebody that really handed it to Richard Dawkins in a debate), and a professor of Divinity — he makes the point that Jesus divinity, trinity, and substitutional atonement (not even accepted until 16th century) were not tenets of early Christians or pronounced "consensus" until centuries after.
He does rail against "fundamentalist" thinking that misconstrues the bible and reads into it a reflection of what some theologian proclaimed, and I think he's on track there, as I think many Christians make an idol of the bible. It's the spirit, not the letter…
Post a Comment