After looking at a number of “denominational distinctives,” which are most often doctrines over which there is church division, we often see such beliefs labelled as “non-essential” for salvation. This labelling drove me to look more closely at what is thought of as essential doctrine for the Christian church and why such is the case. Finally, where there are major differences in doctrinal views (considered by some denominations/traditions as essential) why do such differences exist among Bible believing Christians?
The
following summary of beliefs and doctrines is from a listing I found
online and is a good representation (though not complete) of what is
generally viewed as essential Christian beliefs for salvation. See
this link provided for further
information or study:
Essentials
and Non-Essentials in a Nutshell
(link
https://credohouse.org/blog/essentials-and-non-essentials-in-a-nutshell)
1.
Essential: Issues pertaining to the person and work of Christ:
Belief in Christ’s deity and humanity (1 John 4:2-3; Rom. 10:9)
Belief that you are a sinner in need of God’s mercy (1 John 1:10)
Belief that Christ died on the cross and rose bodily from the grave for our sins (1 Cor 15:3-4)
Belief that faith in Christ is necessary (John 3:16)
2. Essential for historic Christian orthodoxy: These include beliefs “essential for salvation” but are broader in that they express what has been believed by the historic Christian church for the last two thousand years, no matter which tradition.
The doctrine of the Trinity as expressed at Nicea
The doctrine of the Hypostatic Union (Christ is fully man and fully God) as expressed at Chalcedon
The belief in the future second coming of Christ
A belief in the inspiration and authority of Scripture
A belief in God’s transcendence (His metaphysical distinction from the universe)
A belief in God’s immanence (His present activity in the world and our lives)
A belief in God’s sovereignty (while there are different ways to define sovereignty, this basically purports that God is in control)
Belief that Christ is the only way to a right relationship with God
Belief in eternal punishment of the unredeemed
Please notice that these are essential, even if they are not as essential as those expressed in the previous category. In other words, these do not represent negotiables. These are still “cardinal doctrines.”
In number 2 above labelled , “Essential for historic Christian orthodoxy:” we start to run into some disagreement and even disputes despite the fact that these areas are still considered essential or cardinal doctrines.
Firstly I’d like to comment on the statement, “The belief in the future second coming of Christ.” Probably most Christians would agree with the statement but not be at all clear on what it means. Within the church there are many divisive theories and beliefs concerning the second coming i.e the parousia. Some go so far as to divide the scripture texts (that refer to the second coming) into two events so as to have a “rapture” separate from the second coming. The result of these different theories is disagreement and often avoidance of the topic.
So.... Why is what anyone believes about the second coming of Christ important?
1. Personally, I believe it is important because our belief completely colours our world view and thus our witness to our friends, neighbours and all those around us. While we are waiting for Christ to return (and we are clearly told we don’t know when that will be) we have been told what we are to be doing during this period of time.
2. Many Christians would correctly say that our job or role is “to occupy” while we await the second coming of Jesus. What is not so well understood, by this particular answer, is what is meant by “occupy.” The word occupy is found in the King James translation of Luke 19:13 and is taken from “The Parable of the Ten Minas” (Luke 19:11-25). Rather than “occupy,” other translations use the phrase “engage in business” and I think this a far better choice. The balance of the story in Luke as well as the way it appears in Matthew 25:14-30 bears this out. Personally I view occupy as a more passive concept while a command to engage in business is more active.
An analogy I’d like to draw is that of one waiting for a bus. They don’t know when exactly the bus is coming but they are certain it will be “any time now.” They spend their time occupying the space where they stand while they wait. Certainly they don’t get involved in doing business within the community where they wait – the thinking being “what’s the point, I’ll be outa’ here shortly.” In this instance, occupying is actually synonymous with simply waiting.
Someone else, not knowing when the bus will come, decides to engage with the locals around him doing as much business as he can. He makes contacts and learns about local concerns and during his wait, he hands out business cards and lines up several future projects while making friends in the process. Same waiting period spent in an entirely different manner.
3. Certain views concerning the end of this age, and the coming of the Kingdom of God, have a more optimistic view of coming events while other views are much more pessimistic. Certain of these views do a far better job of offering an explanation as to why we are here and what we need to be doing. Both this point and the next are closely tied into the concept of “occupy” and/or engage in business.
4. Throughout history there have been frequent predictions and pronouncements having to do with the end of the world and the ‘next great expected event.’ Well over 150 such predictions alone are listed in the Wikipedia documenting such events (see “List of dates apocalyptic events.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events).
For Christian believers, the next great expected event is the Second coming of Christ. Jesus spoke of His return to earth and the kingdom of God to come (second coming) numerous times. In discussing when this was to be, Jesus clearly said that no one but the Father knows the day or hour (see Matthew 24:36). Also, as Jesus was about to ascend back to Heaven it says in Acts 1:6,7: “So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.”
Despite Jesus clearly saying no one but God knows the timing of the second coming, there have been countless predictions citing either single dates or ranges of dates or years for this event. None, of course, have come to pass and in my own opinion they have not been helpful spreading the gospel message (indeed, in the long run I believe such proclamations have been hinderances). The most positive sign I see that Jesus gave of when this age will end is, Matthew 24:14 “And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.”
Some views of the parousia (and whether or not it is two events rather than a single event) are so focused on the idea of the“imminence,” of the “Rapture” that they become overly preoccupied or distracted from the role/job Christ gave us (to engage in business and occupy) while He is away. In some instances I see this has led to the failure of the church to engage and push back against the darkness, lies and deceptions that have been steadily gaining root in our culture along with the creeping darkness spreading within our communities.
5. It is very difficult to have a meaningful, well thought out discussion with fellow believers if there is a poor understanding or disagreement over the meaning of terminology. We read the same words from the same book but do not garner the same messages or meanings. When it comes to the second coming, the definitions of terms such as “Bride of Christ,” church, Israel, the nations, death and resurrection etc. become important.
6. So much of the Bible points to ultimate outcomes: harvests, end of sin, end of death, rewards, punishments, etc. Our views and understanding of the end times effects and alters our beliefs about those other final outcome topics. After-all, none of us may be around for the final (world-wide) harvest or the end of the world but it is quite certain we will all be around for our own mortal end and personal harvest.
Secondly the statement, “A belief in God’s sovereignty. (while there are different ways to define sovereignty, this basically says that God is in control).” What does it mean to be “in control?” For instance, does it mean that He must micro-manage everything? Can God allow us humans to make choices (some which would clearly seem to be contrary to His will) and still remain sovereign and in control? To be in charge or in control may be understood by different people in different ways. Because of different schools of thought on this topic, the result is opposing views of salvation, origin of sin, and ultimately the very nature of God.
Third, the statement, “Belief that Christ is the only way to a right relationship with God.” Problems begin to surface when considering what it means to believe. There are disagreements aplenty about actions expected of the believer and/or just what does it mean to believe. Is belief simply a verbal acknowledgement or is there some kind of accompanying behaviour? Is it possible to truly believe while continuing to act in ways completely at odds with the stated belief?
Fourthly the statement, “Belief in eternal punishment of the unredeemed.” whatever that means – There is no agreement concerning the meaning of terms such as punishment &/or death. Personally in place of the word “punishment” I prefer “consequence.” In some places we see terms used such as “wages” while other passages simply register the prescribed outcome related to violations of various laws. In any event the main division related to the idea of eternal punishment is between the concept of “eternal conscious torment” (ECT) and conditional immortality (AKA “annihilationism”). I’m personally going to go with “conditional immortality” and cite Romans 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
In attempting to address those areas of difficulty or disagreement, the quoted article offers this explanation: “To be sure, some of these doctrines “develop,” or mature, but their maturation is only in relation to their seed form which preexisted their more mature expression.” To this explanation I can only question whether the evolved expression was/is ever in fact fully “mature.”
3. The 3rd category of beliefs taken from the article are thought of as ‘Additional to the essentials.’ Within this group are beliefs we can think of as, “Essential for Historic Orthopraxy.” *[note: In the study of religion, orthopraxy is defined as correct conduct]* This includes all of those practices and sins about which the church has been historically united in its belief. This includes such topics as humility, helping the poor, belief that homosexuality is a sin, issues of stewardship, the need to evangelize the lost and respect for the imago dei (which would deem abortion wrong as well as all gender changing procedures).
It is my view that in this area the church has lost it’s historically united view and its voice has become more and more silenced or compromised. Many within the church today – indeed many of today's churches have seemingly changed sides on some of these issues concerning “correct conduct” and are choosing to accept, ignore or avoid such subjects. More on this at the end of this essay.
4. The 4th category of beliefs is referred to as, “Essential for traditional orthodoxy.” Again, these beliefs include all of those from the previous categories, but with some additional distinctives of their own. Essentials include all of those that are foundational to one of the three main Christian traditions: Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Roman Catholicism. These beliefs distinguish one tradition from the next, but are not absolutely essential from the broader Christian worldview expressed above.
Some Protestant distinctives would include:
General belief in the major pronouncements of the first seven ecumenical councils (325-787 AD)
Belief in the necessity for a personal relationship with Jesus Christ
Belief that justification is through faith alone on the basis of Christ alone
Belief that Scripture alone has ultimate and final authority on all matters of faith and practice.
The canon of Scripture made up of 66 books (excluding the Deuterocanonical books)
While most traditions claim to accept the authority of Scripture, they do not all view it through the same lens or context and this can be problematic. Many completely miss the historical context altogether. (More on this at the end of the essay)
5. Essential for denominational orthodoxy. Some examples:
Credo-baptism, i.e., Baptism is only for believers (e.g. Baptists)
Infant baptism (e.g. Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans)
Unconditional election (e.g. Reformed and Presbyterians)
Arminian theology (e.g. Methodists, Nazarenes)
Belief in the continuation of the Charismatic gifts (e.g. Pentecostals, Church of God)
At
this point the general consensus seems to be that there is already a
division between three main branches of Christianity (Orthodox,
Catholic and Protestant) and while further denominational divisions
exist within those branches – particularly the Protestant, we can
still maintain a level of unity. Quoting from the referenced article,
“ Essentials
and Non-Essentials in a Nutshell:”
“While
these might be considered worthy of breaking local fellowship in
practice, they are not important enough to break ultimate fellowship.
In other words, these represent legitimate debates that should not
affect our unity.”
It is my opinion however that they often do affect the unity within the church and this is indeed unfortunate.
6. Important but not essential: These are those beliefs that do not describe any particular tradition necessarily. They are important, but not that important. Some examples:
Beliefs about particulars in the creation debate
Belief whether the books of Jonah and Job are historical accounts
Beliefs about the authorship of 2 Peter
Belief about particular end-time schemes (i.e. premillennial, amillennial, post-millennial) ***[Note: however these “schemes” do play a direct understanding on a belief considered “essential for historic Christian orthodoxy” in section 2 above]***
The order of books in the canon
Which translation of the Bible to use from the pulpit
Which Gospel was written first
How often one should celebrate the Lord’s supper
Whether or not Christ taught in Greek or Aramaic
As I look at these lists and think about the category in which each topic has been placed, a number of questions spring to mind. The first question is simply: “why?” Why is such a listing of subjects (to the degree it has been organized) seen as either necessary or helpful? How do such divisions contribute to promoting unity or a better understanding of a Biblical worldview? Even if you accept the necessity for defining things like “core Christian beliefs,” why then is there a need for further division into even more categories - beyond the first three?
I understand efforts to distinguish between beliefs thought of as essential (for salvation) from those that are not considered essential... but I can also see the risk of serious contradictions and other issues arising when attempting to organize matters of faith in such a compartmentalized manner. Even within the first category there are items considered to be essential that are either directly or indirectly influenced by beliefs that are listed in one or more of the non-essential lists. And then, of course, there is always the problem of definitions, context and how one has been taught to understand certain concepts.
In section 2 above (labelled as “Essential for historic Christian orthodoxy”) one of the points listed is “A belief in the inspiration and authority of Scripture.” I do believe that on first mention most Christians would say they agree with the statement. However, I’m quite certain that they would not agree on what it is that they claim to be agreeing with - especially when it comes to the meaning of “inspiration.” Disagreements do not come from the scriptures themselves so much as from differing interpretation of the text and individuals trying to read into the text what they have been taught or conditioned to think.
The context of any communication plays a huge role in understanding that which is being communicated. Many disagreements and misunderstandings arise when something has been taken out of context. When it comes to scripture, a question that must be considered is: through what lens do you read scripture? For example: if you read the Bible through the lens of a 20th century dispensational Evangelical Christian, you are likely going to miss some (or perhaps many) of the points being made that 1st century readers and churches would have understood. Furthermore, those 1st century readers may even have had the benefit of hearing the writer (or one of His disciples) speak on the topic prior to receiving the written word and they would have had a much better idea of what the writer was talking about.
This may come as a surprise to some... but the Christian church has a long and rich history going back much further than the 19th century. I mention this fact because I believe that much of this history has been lost on many evangelicals who may have only a vague awareness of the history of even their own (relatively new) church or denomination. Without a good foundation, without a grasp of the history which accompanied the writing, one can loose sight of, misunderstand and even be deceived by that which was intended by the idea of “sola scriptura.”
It is very important to remember that the Gospel message was initially spread by the spoken word throughout the nations. The Great Commission was initially carried out by the preaching and teaching of either the apostles directly or by their disciples. This would result in groups of Christ followers being established in many places within those nations as the message spread. The preaching and teaching might then be followed up by letters or written messages to these new followers. Some of these writings (a few) are part of our Bible today – BUT – there is a larger body of very early writings which, while not scripture, speak to the issues and understanding of scripture as (or soon after) it was being written. In other words all Scripture is attached to historical context and we stand to loose greater clarity and understanding if we ignore or loose sight of this history. This is one of the main problems of viewing scripture only through a 20th century lens.
On the subject of the inspiration and authority of scripture, it is unfortunate that many today would agree with the authority and inspiration of the Bible – as long as they can apply their own lens and interpretation to the written word. Among many Christians it might be said that “inspiration of scripture” applies mostly to those areas that agree with the opinions they themselves already have formed while “authority” is a word they might more likely equate with “advice.”
As I was thinking about the compartmentalization of scriptural topics, one dynamic which seems to have come into play is equating the idea of essential with important and non-essential as unimportant. When pressed, I doubt if very many Christians would actually call scriptural writings “unimportant” but the lack of study or interest along with an almost persistent avoidance of certain Biblical topics makes me wonder.
In scripture, I never see doctrine referenced as essential or non-essential. There are many passages however that speak to how scripture is to be handled and how doctrine is to be formed, addressed and taught. Numerous scripture passages warn us to beware of the doctrines of men and to watch out for false teachers. Passages that speak to this point are those such as Matthew 15:9, “...in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”
Paul warns us not to be led astray by false doctrine. In his letter to Titus (chapter 2:1) he says, “But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine.” Paul in his second letter to Timothy explains that in the last days people will not endure sound doctrine. 2 Timothy 4:3 says, “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”
Passages such as these are among the many reasons why it is so important for us to teach correct Biblical doctrine. Notice, Paul’s warning does not make a distinction between “essential” and “non-essential” doctrine – only that it be sound doctrine – nor does it say to simply avoid teaching on topics seen as “controversial but non-essential.” In my opinion, one reason that so many ideas have gained footholds within the modern Christian church (including everything from New Age to Social Justice or from the Occult to Eastern Philosophy) is because doctrines that are seen as potentially controversial or non-essential, have been met with silence or even worse - acceptance - in the pulpits of far too many churches. There is a hunger today for the truth about some of these hard and controversial subjects and if we aren’t prepared to address these issues, the hungry will look elsewhere to attempt to satisfy their hunger.
No comments:
Post a Comment