The pastor preached about "essentials." He wanted us to be sure that we're majoring on the "essentials" and not on the "non-essentials." I mulled over the term. What constitutes "essentials"? I said last week that doctrines of "TULIP" were not "essentials." By that I meant I can (and do) still fellowship with Arminians (partial or full) even though I think their version is wrong. So what are we talking about?
There are "cardinal" doctrines and "peripheral" doctrines. There are fundamental truths, without which we do not have a Christian faith, and there are other doctrines that don't affect salvation. A saying often (wrongly) attributed to Augustine says, "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity." What is the difference? Paul spoke of matters "of first importance" (1 Cor 15:3). There are certain beliefs that, if they are false, Christianity is false. These are the "essentials." Note, it's not whether you believe them; it's whether they are true. For instance, God claims to be the only God (Deut 6:4). Paul claims the death and resurrection of Christ are "of first importance" (1 Cor 15:3-7). He says, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (1 Cor 15:14). That's what I'm talking about. If it is not true that Christ rose from the dead, your salvation does not exist. That is, it doesn't matter if you believe it's true or not. Is it true? These are the things that must be true if Christianity is to be true. These and others. Christ is God (Php 2:6-11). Jesus was God incarnate -- God in the flesh (1 Tim 3:16). Salvation is by faith through grace apart from works (Eph 2:8-10). Jesus is the only way (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). The trustworthiness of Scripture (John 17:17; 1 Tim 3:16-17). These are essential truths without which Christ is of any value, faith is of any use, and salvation is available to anyone.
Scripture talks about other things. For instance, Paul says, "Whatever is not from faith is sin" (Rom 14:23). The principle of Christian Liberty allows for personal convictions regarding non-essential things. There is very little in eschatology that requires agreement in order to be saved. There is room for disagreement on some things. However, with a faithful adherence to Scripture and a willingness to abide by God's Word, much of these "gray areas" go away when we interpret Scripture with Scripture and let God be true though every man a liar.
5 comments:
I like your point about belief and actual truth. Us believing a thing to be true doesn't make it true. If we are wrong, and Christ isn't God incarnate, Christ didn't die in the cross as payment for sin, and He didn't rise again three days later, then nothing we believe to be true matters. These things being true have real outcomes. Just like those that believe in a flat earth. Their belief doesn't make it true, but it isn't true and the round earth proves itself in how it effects reality.
The discussion on essentials often boils down to that, doesn't it? "Well, if you and I disagree, am I not saved?" Irrelevant. The question is what must be true if we can be saved? And, if, say we reject the reliability of Scripture, we can't know anything is true, including the existence of Christ, if we don't have that. "Am I not saved if I don't agree?" Not the point. You're standing without any solid basis ... and we have nothing to discuss.
I was surprised last week when you described the doctrines of TULIP as “nonessential ideas.” In the process of reading and thinking through those posts last week, I was struck by how important each of those truths was towards a proper understanding of the Gospel, how God saves, etc. By the end of the series, in my mind all five points of doctrine were firmly established as core beliefs--i.e. basic to a proper theology--and I could see how a misunderstanding of them, when taken to their extremes, helps distort the gospel of grace and form false versions of Christianity. Therefore, I find it hard personally to hold to the usual “theological triage” rankings I have seen--no matter how thoughtfully they have been compiled (and by those with greater minds than mine). I do understand your “if it is true” and “if I believe it is true” distinctions, but I am having difficulty separating those two phrases in my mind!
One question for you (which I might have posed on 11/22/24): Would you say that at least the “basic nature of man” is an essential doctrine (if not all of TULIP)? I ask because you included the “nature of man” as an essential in both your “What Makes Christianity” and your “Essentials of Christianity” series (on 9/28/09 and 8/15/13, respectively). As I mentioned above, that first doctrine is essential in my mind because the rest of TULIP builds upon it and therefore needs to be accepted as being true, as well as something I believe.
Lorna, I don't have a coherent way to understand the full Gospel without the doctrines expressed in "TULIP". That being said, I would not break fellowship with someone who put their faith in Christ but rejected those doctrines. That's what I meant by "non-essential."
I understand. I am concluding that the matter of “fellowship” is a very individual thing and won’t look the same for every one of us. Thank you for clarifying your position.
Post a Comment