I'm exploring an idea here. Among Christians (let's keep it at legitimate, genuine believers) there are different views on different issues. There are, of course, some central things on which we all agree. They are what we call "essentials." They define "Christian" in such a way that dismissing these essentials dismisses Christianity. So, for instance, if we dismiss "Saved by grace through faith apart from works" (Eph 2:8-9), we end up with a works-based salvation that ultimately nullifies Christ's work on the cross. That's a belief, of course, but it's not Christianity. If we say, "All people are basically good" and deny that all have sinned (Rom 3:23), we are denying Christianity. If we deny that Jesus is God Incarnate, we deny Jesus's very words and we cannot be said to be "Christian" while denying who Christ is. Those are just a few examples of "essentials" and we can debate what is and is not essential, but I think we can all agree that there are some essentials on which we all agree.
My musing here is not about those essentials. My thoughts are on the rest. Awhile back I heard a pastor I generally regard as biblically sound teaching on the Rapture. He gave the ever-popular "Pre-Trib Rapture" position as his own and then declared, "It's absolutely clear and those who disagree are simply willfully ignorant, ignoring God's Word and intentionally teaching falsehoods." I was, frankly, taken aback. I happened to know that this particular preacher worked alongside with some of those who disagreed with him and he respected them for their strong adherence to Scripture. Here he was calling them out as false teachers -- intentional false teachers. Now, I'll be honest. Most matters of eschatology are not as straightforward and "set in concrete" as much of the rest of Scripture. There is a lot of metaphor and imagery and such that makes it less certain. To be completely up front, this "Pre-Trib Rapture" thing is, in actuality, fairly new on the theological market, offered in the mid-19th century. That in itself makes me ... uncomfortable. But this preacher didn't only believe in it; he believed that those who did not were in sin.
I see that a lot among us believers. I remember a website that touted itself as a "biblical discernment" site (I don't think it's around anymore). It arranged itself around various preachers and teachers. Look up the name and you'll find all their false teaching and why you should avoid them. Some was genuine false teaching, but some was stuff like "They believe in psychology" or the like. I don't think, once they were done, there was a Christian preacher or teacher left on the planet that you could trust. Why? Because everyone believed something that this site disagreed with and, therefore, were in sin, possibly even going to hell, certainly to be avoided. It's own "cancel culture."
This is not the same as "I believe ..." This is not the same as "I read this text to say X and here's why I say that." It's not even the same as, "You teach Y and I don't find that consistent with Scripture." Disagreeing on points and readings and interpretations are one thing. Damning the ones who disagree for their disagreement is another.
So, when is it appropriate and when is it not? I would say that those who deny the essentials deny the faith and need to be pointed out. Not damned, for sure. That's not our call. But pointed out clearly and even prayed for. The next question, right after we determine what the essentials are, is on the non-essentials. Is it right to "cancel" those who disagree on our particular understanding of this non-essential passage? By "cancel" I don't mean "I'm not listening to you anymore." I mean "You're in sin, possibly not even saved, likely going to hell and you have no place in Christian circles anymore" kind of canceling. Is it right or wrong for us to say, "I believe X and you must, too, if you are going to go to heaven" when X is not one of those essentials? Of course, all this begs that earlier question, doesn't it? Can we agree on essentials?
24 comments:
When I look at blog stuff in the morning, I usually start with mine, then move on to the others I follow. It's interesting when I see something in the thumbnail view of my comments that starts with something like, "RE Stan's latest bit of foolishness and heresy...", that I'm always motivated to check out what you've actually said that's caused such an overreaction.
I can guess who that might be. Maybe I should allow him to comment ... you know, just as advertising for people to come see my blog. (That's intended as humor.)
I'm not sure you want the people you'd get. I have to admit, that it definitely makes me curious as to what you've written.
I get the same attempts to post. I just delete them at this point, as it has nothing to do with whatever topic to which the troll attempted to post it. He does this because he isn't allowed to post here and insists his voice MUST be heard. But if I wanted to engage in or read various opinions on anything you post, darned if it doesn't make sense for me to come here and read the comments! The troll won't accept that he brought about his own inconveniences and won't do a thing to turn it around that doesn't involve everyone else bowing unconditionally to his "special-ness".
As to the subject on the table, with regard to essentials, I would submit there is a disparity as to how the essentials are regarded by someone like you and someone like, say, the troll or the "other guy". An example would be, how does a Christian love his neighbor? By guiding the neighbor away from sinful practices, or by enabling those sinful practices so as not to offend? Even agreement on the essentials can be muddied.
You don't need to post this. But someone has seeing "RE Stan's latest..." before I delete a comment, confused with reading the comment.
There is nothing in the Bible about essential and nonessential doctrine:
https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2020/07/king-jesus-least-of-commandments-and.html
Without reading the link, I predict that the argument being made is that the Bible never uses the specific term "essential". Much like the Bible doesn't support the doctrine of the Trinity.
Interesting argument, Anonymous. So, anything you want to believe and call "Christian" is valid? Or did you not understand my definition of "essential"? " They are what we call 'essentials.' They define 'Christian' in such a way that dismissing these essentials dismisses Christianity." That principle IS in the Bible.
So, I read that link. I don't really understand what he was trying to say, but it sounded like his understanding of essential/non-essential is different than what Stan (and most theologians) mean. He seemed to believe that essential and non are strictly the laws and the prophets that Christians choose to heed or not. That is a different definition of essential than what is presented here. Several years ago, Stan did a series of posts about what are considered the essentials of Christianity, and none of them had to do with which laws we continue to obey or not.
I think he's saying all is essential. I assume he means that every one must agree with his understanding of all of Scripture or they are not Christians. (By "he" I mean the guy that posted the comment here and NOT the guy that wrote the linked article.)
I preach against Southern Baptist churches. I also preach regularly against non denominational churches. Come out from among them (2 Cor 6:14-18 kJB) and attend only the local Independent Fundamental Baptist church. Romans 14 only talks about meats.
Excellent example of what I'm talking about here. "Attend only the local Independent Fundamental Baptist church" because that's what you find in the Bible, right? It's right there in ... hang on ... 3 Peter? Hezekiah? Sorry, I'm not finding "Independent Fundamental Baptist church" anywhere in my Bible. That's odd. Oh, but "King James Version." There it is! Right on the cover! Got it.
Precisely the thing I'm talking about. "I believe ... that the Independent Fundamental Baptist church is the only right church and you must, too."
I was wondering about the babe in Christ.
The newborn in Christ may know only few essentials of doctrine.
and yet they are just as saved as the Mature christian.
yes;the babes are expected to grow and learn, but the initial condition is one of doctrinal ignorance. so the babe in Christ represents what is essential. you must be born again.
the rest of doctrine enlightens our understanding of who this God is, that has saved us.
exp: The babe learns that we are Saved by Grace thru Faith, not by works.
The Mature learns that faith alone doesn't save anyone, unless there is a proper object and process of that faith, sound doctrine of Jesus Christ.
then when Mature Christian comes to a wall in his learning, he reverts to being a child again. Jesus Loves me, this i know..
how marvelous...
Perhaps you can help me. Our local Independent Fundamental Baptist church believes (as, I think, all "Independent" Fundamental Baptist churches do) that "the local church has the absolute right of self-government, free from the interference of any hierarchy of individuals or organizations." At the same time, our local IFB church was also closed due to government COVID restrictions. Like most other churches in our area, it is opening now with limits, but why does the IFB deny the authority of government and submit to it?
And the main question: Why is the King James Bible the only inspired version?
Bob, that last comment was at anonymous, not you.
To you, Yes. See my definition of "essential." Not "essential in order to become a Christian" but essential in the sense that denying it makes Christianity no longer Christianity. There are basic truths one must believe to be a Christian (like "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved") and there are doctrines we gather as we grow in Christ. If the doctrines we hold contradict the essence of what Christianity is, there is a problem.
I read the post, and it seems like he's imposing his views on the authority of scripture on those specific essential doctrines that differentiate Christianity.
The OT is full of essential doctrines and laws the differentiate and define Judaism from other religions, while the NT does the same in differentiating Christianity from other religions. If one follows his logic, we are required to continue to obey all of the ceremonial laws and cleanliness codes of the OT, and to worship in the Temple. Yet it's clear that the Jesus fulfills those laws and exempts us from them. This doesn't me that we devalue the OT or that we deny that those laws/commands were from God, it means that we look at the OT as the foundation for the new covenant and Jesus teachings.
It's interesting to ask progressives where the line is that separates Christianity from non Christianity. I think most of us would agree that belief in the existence of God is an essential, yet we see self identified "atheist christians". Seems like failure to believe in God pretty much removes your belief from the realm of anything that could be considered Christian.
I guess anonymous took his swing and miss and went back where he came from.
I think the first and second "anonymous" were the same persons.
I assume they are the same, although the second comment didn't seem to be making any serious attempt to get into substance. Probably 2 swings and misses would have been more accurate.
I was wondering if "anonymous" was Kent Brandenburg himself (the blog that was linked).
That's an interesting thought. I perused the blog and I'd guess that Ken isn't the type to make anonymous comments on other peoples blogs. He seemed pretty self confident and like he's prepared to share his wisdom with others.
See, I couldn't be a member of an IFB church on the basis of KJV alone. It's like reading Shakespeare. It's doable, but it's rough.
I wonder, when people say that Scripture is difficult to understand, if they're only reading KJV or NKJV. Then I'd agree with that.
You're so naive. Hard to read or not, if the King James was good enough for Paul and Silas, it's good enough for me.
I'm old enough that the KJV was pretty standard as I was growing up, so it doesn't bother me to read. Of course I understand the problems with it and have moved on. I actually did like the NKJV, it kept a lot of the language I grew up with and got rid of a lot of the problems.
Anyone who advocated KJV only is simply foolish or blind.
Ah, you're right, I forgot Jesus and His disciples all spoke the King's English. How foolish of me.
Post a Comment