What Really Matters?

Essential Doctrine, Orthodoxy, and the Problem of Theological Compartmentalization

Introduction

Within contemporary Christianity, denominational distinctives—often the very doctrines that divide churches—are frequently categorized as “non-essential” for salvation. This practice raises several important theological questions. What doctrines, precisely, are considered essential to Christian faith? On what basis are such determinations made? And why do substantial disagreements persist among Bible-believing Christians, even concerning beliefs widely regarded as essential?

This essay examines a commonly used framework that categorizes Christian beliefs according to varying degrees of doctrinal importance. While such frameworks aim to promote unity and theological clarity, this study argues that they often introduce conceptual tensions, interpretive inconsistencies, and practical consequences that undermine their stated goals. Particular attention is given to doctrines identified as essential for historic Christian orthodoxy, especially eschatology, divine sovereignty, belief, and judgment.

1. Essential Doctrines: The Person and Work of Christ

Doctrines commonly identified as essential for salvation typically center on the person and redemptive work of Jesus Christ. These include belief in Christ’s full deity and humanity, acknowledgement of personal sinfulness, affirmation of Christ’s atoning death and bodily resurrection, and the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation.¹ These beliefs form the theological core of historic Christian proclamation and are widely regarded as non-negotiable within orthodox Christianity.

2. Essential for Historic Christian Orthodoxy

A second category expands beyond the immediate requirements for salvation to include doctrines historically affirmed across Christian traditions. These beliefs, while sometimes distinguished from the first category, are nonetheless regarded as core or fundamental doctrines and therefore non-negotiable. They include Trinitarian theology as articulated at Nicaea, Christological orthodoxy as defined at Chalcedon, the inspiration and authority of Scripture, divine transcendence and immanence, divine sovereignty, the exclusivity of Christ, final judgment, and the future return of Christ.²

Despite their status as essential, these doctrines are frequently the subject of disagreement, revealing tensions within the category itself.

A. The Second Coming of Christ and Christian Practice

While most Christians affirm belief in the future return of Christ, substantial disagreement exists regarding the nature, timing, and structure of this event. Competing eschatological systems—including those that distinguish between a “rapture” and a subsequent Second Coming—have often produced division, confusion, or avoidance of the topic altogether.³

The importance of eschatology extends beyond speculative theology; it profoundly shapes Christian worldview and practice. Beliefs about the Parousia influence how Christians understand their role in the world while awaiting Christ’s return.

The biblical mandate often summarized as “occupy” (Luke 19:13, KJV) is better understood, in light of broader textual comparison, as an active commission to engage in productive labor.⁴ This interpretation is reinforced by parallel passages such as Matthew 25:14–30. Eschatological perspectives that emphasize imminent departure from the world risk fostering passivity, whereas others encourage cultural engagement, stewardship, and faithful witness.

Historically, repeated predictions concerning the end of the world—despite explicit biblical warnings against such speculation (Matt. 24:36; Acts 1:6–7)—have proven not only inaccurate but detrimental to Christian witness.⁵ The New Testament instead emphasizes the global proclamation of the gospel as the clearest indicator of the consummation of the age (Matt. 24:14).

B. Terminology and Interpretive Disputes

Theological disagreement is often exacerbated by inconsistent or undefined terminology. Concepts such as church, Israel, Bride of Christ, resurrection, and death are interpreted differently across traditions, making meaningful dialogue difficult. Eschatological frameworks, in particular, exert interpretive pressure on numerous other doctrinal topics, including judgment, reward, and salvation.

C. Divine Sovereignty

Belief in divine sovereignty is widely affirmed, yet sharply contested in definition. Does sovereignty entail exhaustive divine control over all events, or does it permit genuine human freedom within God’s governance? Divergent answers to this question have significant implications for doctrines of salvation, the origin of sin, and the character of God Himself.⁶

D. Faith, Belief, and Obedience

Similarly, the affirmation that Christ is the sole means of reconciliation with God raises the question of what constitutes genuine belief. Is belief merely cognitive assent, or does it necessarily involve transformed conduct? The relationship between faith and obedience remains a point of enduring theological debate.

E. Eternal Punishment and Final Judgment

Perhaps no doctrine in this category is more contested than the belief in eternal punishment. Disagreement centers not on the reality of judgment but on its nature. The primary division lies between eternal conscious torment and conditional immortality (annihilationism).⁷

This essay adopts the latter position, understanding death as the ultimate consequence of sin, consistent with Pauline language describing death as sin’s “wages” (Rom. 6:23). The debate underscores the importance of precise language, as biblical terms such as death, destruction, and punishment are variously interpreted.

3. Additional to the Essentials: Historic Orthopraxy

A third category includes beliefs historically associated with correct Christian conduct (orthopraxy). These encompass moral and ethical commitments such as humility, care for the poor, sexual ethics, stewardship, evangelism, and respect for the imago Dei, including opposition to abortion and gender reassignment procedures.⁸

In contrast to earlier periods of broad consensus, the contemporary church exhibits increasing fragmentation and silence on these matters. In many cases, positions once regarded as settled have been reclassified as negotiable or avoided altogether.

4. Essential for Traditional Orthodoxy

Distinctive beliefs associated with major Christian traditions—Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox—form a fourth category. Protestant distinctives include justification by faith alone, the primacy of Scripture, a defined canon, and affirmation of the early ecumenical councils.⁹

While Scripture is universally affirmed as authoritative, divergent interpretive frameworks—particularly those neglecting historical context—often lead to conflicting conclusions.

5. Essential for Denominational Orthodoxy

Denominational beliefs concerning baptism, election, charismatic gifts, and related doctrines are frequently considered sufficient grounds for local separation but not for the dissolution of Christian unity.¹⁰ In practice, however, such differences often function as barriers to fellowship.

6. Important but Not Essential

A final category includes beliefs commonly regarded as important yet non-essential, such as creation views, questions of authorship, eschatological models, liturgical practices, and translation preferences. Notably, some of these beliefs exert significant influence on doctrines classified as essential, calling the stability of such categorizations into question.

Conclusion: The Problem of Doctrinal Compartmentalization

Scripture itself does not divide doctrine into essential and non-essential categories. Instead, it consistently emphasizes sound doctrine and warns against the teachings of human origin (Matt. 15:9; Titus 2:1; 2 Tim. 4:3).¹¹ The danger of contemporary compartmentalization lies in equating non-essential with unimportant, leading to theological neglect and pastoral silence.

The proliferation of unbiblical ideologies within the modern church—ranging from New Age spirituality to secular moral frameworks—may be attributed, in part, to this silence. There remains a profound hunger for truth on difficult and controversial topics. When the church fails to address such subjects, other ideologies will slowly but surely seep in to fill the vacuum.

Endnotes

1.      1 John 4:2–3; Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 15:3–4; John 3:16.

2.      Nicene Creed (325/381); Chalcedonian Definition (451).

3.      George Eldon Ladd, The Blessed Hope (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956).

4.      Luke 19:13; cf. Matthew 25:14–30.

5.      Matthew 24:36; Acts 1:6–7.

6.      Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013), 387–420.

7.      Edward Fudge, The Fire That Consumes (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011).

8.      Genesis 1:26–27; Matthew 25:31–46.

9.      Alister McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2020).

10.  “Essentials and Non-Essentials in a Nutshell,” Credo House.

11.  Matthew 15:9; Titus 2:1; 2 Timothy 4:3.

 

First published May 2024, revised December 2026 

Putting the Pieces Together

Toward the end of the Second Great Awakening in the nineteenth century, the church witnessed the emergence of several new religious movements—some of them making rather extraordinary claims. Among the most recognizable figures and movements from this period are Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science), Charles T. Russell (Jehovah’s Witnesses), William Miller (Adventism), Ellen G. White (Seventh-day Adventism), Joseph Smith (Mormonism), and John Nelson Darby, who systematized and popularized dispensational theology along with the concept of a pre-tribulational rapture. Pentecostalism and several of its offshoots can also be traced to this general timeframe.

I was raised within one of these denominations, though I left it as a young man.

The church in question has its roots in the mid-1800s and grew out of what has come to be known as the Great Disappointment. This event refers to the experience of a group of nineteenth-century Millerites who became convinced—through their interpretation of biblical prophecy—that Christ would return on October 22, 1844. Their conviction was so strong that many gave away possessions and left crops unharvested, fully expecting the imminent return of the Lord.

When Christ did not return as predicted, the result was profound disappointment. Many adherents returned to the churches from which they had come, attempting to rebuild their lives. A smaller remnant, however, remained together, unwilling to concede error. Instead, they maintained that the date had been correct but that they had misunderstood the nature of the event itself.

Over time, as this remnant developed into an organized denomination, its theology also evolved. While many beliefs common to historic Christianity were retained, a number of distinctive and sometimes peculiar doctrines emerged. Central to this development was a strong emphasis on eschatology and the Second Advent. In fact, it can be said that the denomination’s views on the second coming became fixed early on, with subsequent theological beliefs forming around this core conviction.

I believe it is impossible to understand the points I wish to address without acknowledging this historical background. We are all shaped by our histories and circumstances, and this process is not unique to the denomination in which I was raised. Across Christianity, we find denominational distinctives and theological assumptions that are widely accepted and rarely questioned. In some cases, such views are read into Scripture rather than drawn from it.

I left my church in my early twenties. At the time, I did not realize how deeply its unique blend of end-times views, doctrinal distinctives, and theological assumptions had shaped my understanding of both the church and Christianity as a whole. I only began to recognize this many years later, after accepting the gospel message and systematically re-examining my earlier teachings in light of Scripture.

That vetting process continues to this day, particularly in areas I describe as “missing but unavoidable.” By this I mean doctrines that are not typically classified as essential for salvation yet remain both important and impossible to ignore. Many of the beliefs I was raised with fall into this category, differing significantly from positions held by most evangelical churches. Where possible, I feel compelled to examine these issues carefully, continually seeking greater scriptural clarity.

Recently I encountered a saying online: “If you continue to carry the bricks from your past, you will end up building the same house.” This resonated deeply with me. Having left the church of my youth, I effectively moved out of the old metaphorical house and wandered—“homeless”—for quite some time, unwilling to settle elsewhere. Eventually, however, I became ready to build again—but not to reconstruct the same uninhabitable structure I had abandoned.

At the same time, I have come to realize that not all the bricks from that old house should be discarded. Some are worth preserving. The challenge lies in discerning which bricks should be kept, which should be replaced, and what should take their place. That process must begin with the foundation, and the only solid foundation is biblical truth. The core beliefs of Christianity—the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Kingdom of God, and Christ’s kingship—must form the footings. Secondary to these, yet still grounded in Scripture, are the teachings and doctrines that developed over time within the early church.

This is the puzzle I have been working through, to varying degrees, since returning to Christianity.

Missing but Unavoidable Questions

There is no broad, unanimous agreement within the church on many of these issues. As a result, such topics are often avoided or dismissed as secondary because they are not considered essential for salvation. Yet in some denominations these same topics are treated as doctrinally significant, making it impossible to simply set them aside.

Even when disagreements exist primarily at the individual level, they can still be divisive. Secondary or not, these matters are far from trivial. Scripture speaks to them, and they shape how individuals understand life, purpose, suffering, and what lies beyond death. I do not believe they can be ignored or handled carelessly without consequence.

So how should one proceed? It seemed reasonable to me that any firmly held belief—especially one newly encountered—should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. I had no desire to replace one erroneous belief with another. Any view rooted in long-standing assumptions or imposed interpretations must be tested against the actual text and context of Scripture. Where beliefs conflict with the scriptural data, the beliefs—not the text—must be reconsidered.

Although this approach appears rational, I was surprised by how frustrating it often proved to be. Many people claim openness until their own beliefs are questioned. Even those who profess to hold views loosely can respond defensively when those views are carefully examined. It is not uncommon for individuals to reject truth when it contradicts deeply held assumptions. For this reason, the journey can be a lonely one.

Heaven, Hell, and the Second Coming

What happens at the end of human life? Few questions are more unavoidable, and yet there is little agreement. Beliefs about death, heaven, hell, and what lies beyond the grave profoundly influence how people live. Churches’ positions on these matters shape their mission, priorities, and use of resources.

Regarding hell—specifically the notion of eternal conscious torment—I will address this and other related topics more fully in essays which follow this one. In brief, however, I reject the traditional view and instead affirm conditional immortality (often called annihilationism). According to this view, following final judgment, the wicked are judged, punished and destroyed. At that point, they will cease to exist. This understanding, I believe, aligns more faithfully with Scripture.

Many problematic views of both heaven and hell appear to have been influenced by lingering Neoplatonic and Gnostic ideas, especially the dualistic separation of soul and body. This influence is evident in the historical development of Christian theology, particularly through Augustine and later medieval thought.

I believe heaven is real. The confusion lies in when and how it relates to humanity. Do souls go there immediately? Is there a rapture? A millennium? If so, when? How does all of this relate to Christ’s promised return?

For a time, I embraced pre-millennial, pre-tribulation rapture theology. I studied it extensively, but over time I became increasingly dissatisfied. The system, in my view, fails to withstand close scrutiny of Scripture and relies heavily on assumptions imposed upon the text. Other millennial views have their own strengths and weaknesses, raising the question: are we allowing Scripture to speak for itself, or are we forcing it to fit our systems?

Eventually, I realized that belief in Christ’s return and in a New Heaven and New Earth does not require adherence to any of these systems. As Michael Heiser has noted, theological systems often end up controlling interpretation rather than serving it. Scripture must remain primary.

Creation, Redemption, and Restoration

From the beginning, God created humanity for life on earth. Humans were formed from the dust and animated by God’s breath, commissioned to steward creation and exercise dominion. Scripture consistently portrays God’s intention to unite heaven and earth—not to abandon one for the other.

Human rebellion introduced sin and death, affecting all creation. Yet this fall was anticipated, and God’s plan of redemption encompassed not only humanity but the entire cosmos. Creation has always been moving toward restoration, not abandonment.

Jesus entered history to repair what sin had broken. Through His life, death, resurrection, and ascension, He fully accomplished that mission. He has commissioned His followers to proclaim the gospel and He promised to return—not to evacuate the faithful, but to reign. At His return, the dead will be raised, the living transformed, judgment executed, and creation renewed. Heaven and earth will be made new and joined together, and Christ will reign forever.

Amen.

First published February 2023, revised December 2025 

What Church Is God’s Church? — Body of Christ

Many different metaphors have been used in reference to the church; with the term “Body of Christ” being one of the most frequently used.  During a morning devotional period not long ago, it occurred to me to consider all this term might include.  It seems to me that it does a lot more than simply describe how all the individual parts of a body should work together to perform their tasks in the service of the whole body.  I believe this metaphor can be useful for understanding more than just that one point.

In reference to the church as “the body,” the following link provides a very good summary from which many of the following points were taken:
http://www.gotquestions.org/body-of-Christ.html#ixzz3FSmtMxrD

“The phrase ‘the Body of Christ’ is a common New Testament metaphor for the Church (all those who are truly saved). The Church is called ‘one body in Christ’ in Romans 12:5, ‘one body’ in 1 Corinthians 10:17, ‘the body of Christ’ in 1 Corinthians 12:27 and Ephesians 4:12, and ‘the body’ in Hebrews 13:3. The Church is clearly equated with ‘the body’ of Christ in Ephesians 5:23 and Colossians 1:24.”

It then lists several reasons why the Church may rightly be called the Body of Christ:

1. Members of the Body of Christ are joined to Christ in salvation (Ephesians 4:15–16).

2. Members of the Body of Christ follow Christ as their Head (Ephesians 1:22–23).

3. Members of the Body of Christ are the physical representation of Christ in the world. The Church is the organism through which Christ manifests His life today.

4. Members of the Body of Christ are indwelt by the Holy Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9).

5. Members of the Body of Christ possess a diversity of gifts suited to particular functions (1 Corinthians 12:4–31). “The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts… so it is with Christ” (v. 12).

6. Members of the Body of Christ share a common bond with all other Christians, regardless of background, race, or ministry (1 Corinthians 12:25).

7. Members of the Body of Christ are secure in their salvation (John 10:28–30). For a Christian to lose salvation, God would have to perform an “amputation” on the Body of Christ.

8. Members of the Body of Christ partake of Christ’s death and resurrection (Colossians 2:12).

9. Members of the Body of Christ share Christ’s inheritance (Romans 8:17).

10. Members of the Body of Christ receive the gift of Christ’s righteousness (Romans 5:17).

Keeping the body metaphor in mind, a compelling observation emerges: when a body is healthy and functioning as intended, it can accomplish all it was designed to do. Psalm 139:14 describes the human body in these words: “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” The human body is indeed a complex and marvelous creation. Each component—down to the smallest microscopic cell—bears witness to this truth.

Yet we also know that human bodies sometimes fail. Systems break down, parts malfunction, and restoration or healing becomes necessary. The same, it seems, can be said of the church. When the body does not function as it should, dysfunction and disease result. Might there be parallels between physical illness and dysfunction within the church—the spiritual body of Christ?

Both the physical body and the church share the same Creator. When each functions properly, both reflect the One by whom we have been fearfully and wonderfully made. Yet we also know that when health fails, the body cannot function optimally—and sometimes cannot function at all.

One critical factor in physical health is communication. What happens when communication within the body is disrupted or ceases altogether? In researching this, I came across the following statement from the University of Utah Health Sciences Center:

“The cells in our bodies are constantly sending out and receiving signals… These are just a few ways in which cell communication can go wrong, resulting in disease. In fact, most diseases involve at least one breakdown in cell communication.”
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cells/badcom/

This is fascinating. If a breakdown in cellular communication contributes to most physical diseases, might the same be true of dysfunction within the church—the Body of Christ? Could breakdowns in communication lead to stagnation, dysfunction, or even atrophy within the spiritual body? These seem like questions worth serious consideration.

Although the church is composed of individuals and groups of individuals, Scripture affirms that we have been given everything necessary to function as one body. Consider points three and six above: the church is the organism through which Christ manifests His life to the world, and its members share a common bond regardless of background or ministry. “There should be no division in the body.” Unfortunately, it cannot be said that the church has consistently functioned this way. It is often here that divisions and dysfunction begin to emerge.

Today, Christianity is marked by numerous denominations and sects. Many divisions arise from differing interpretations of doctrine. Even within individual denominations, further differences in belief and practice exist. Given such diversity, how realistic is unity? How should legitimate interpretive differences be addressed? Perhaps greater effort must be made to understand both the scriptural basis and historical context behind differing views.

Complete freedom from disagreement would require perfect knowledge, perfect wisdom, and perfect discernment—qualities we simply do not possess. What we do have is God’s Word and the indwelling Holy Spirit, who guides believers into truth.

In the early church, when many came to Christ daily, it seems unlikely that new believers were immediately engaged in heated debates over obscure theological points. The message was simple: accept Jesus Christ—the risen Savior and King—and be saved. As the church grew, the need for sound doctrine became clear, and the apostles addressed errors as they arose. Paul’s letters, in particular, warn against teachings that threatened to distort the gospel. One such divisive issue was circumcision, addressed directly in Galatians.

I was raised in a tradition where doctrinal differences were viewed as critically important—important enough, at times, to jeopardize one’s salvation. Through conversations with others from different backgrounds, I have come to realize that this experience is not unique. Convinced that we were right and others mistaken, much energy was spent correcting the beliefs of other churches. Meanwhile, many who knew little about Jesus received far less attention. Too often, the focus was on refining the Christianity of others rather than sharing the gospel itself.

Rather than fostering unity within the Body of Christ, this emphasis on differences often reinforced division. I sometimes wonder whether this preoccupation with who is right, combined with resistance to fellowship and communication, might be one of the enemy’s most effective strategies for slowing the spread of the gospel. Could this mirror the way disease disrupts communication within the physical body? Scripture does warn that the devil is a deceiver who sows division wherever possible.

This line of thought brings to mind the parable in Matthew 13:24–30. The Message renders it as follows:

“God’s kingdom is like a farmer who planted good seed in his field. That night, while his hired men were asleep, his enemy sowed thistles all through the wheat and slipped away before dawn. When the first green shoots appeared and the grain began to form, the thistles showed up, too.

“The farmhands came to the farmer and said, ‘Master, that was clean seed you planted, wasn’t it? Where did these thistles come from?’

“He answered, ‘Some enemy did this.’

“The farmhands asked, ‘Should we weed out the thistles?’

“He said, ‘No, if you weed the thistles, you’ll pull up the wheat, too. Let them grow together until harvest time. Then I’ll instruct the harvesters to pull up the thistles and tie them in bundles for the fire, then gather the wheat and put it in the barn.’”

What strikes me about this parable is that the wheat is not defined by the field in which it grows. Different plants coexist in the same field, and separation comes only at the harvest, based on the fruit produced. Applied personally, this suggests that I am a Christian not because of the denomination I attend, but because of Christ. My final outcome will not be determined by choosing the “right” church. As Matthew 7:20 reminds us, “You will know them by their fruits.”

When I speak of differing views and divisions, I want to be clear: I am not opposed to healthy discussion. On the contrary, thoughtful dialogue is essential for growth and understanding. I also believe there are core beliefs that define what it means to be Christian and that unite us as members of one body. When believers come together to pray, study Scripture, and seek God with open hearts, the Holy Spirit guides each to the place and role where they are meant to serve.

While I naturally gravitate toward those with whom I share much in common, I learned long ago that waiting for complete agreement would result in isolation. None of us is perfect, and no group possesses a complete or flawless understanding. We are called not to arrive at perfection, but to seek God. In this sense, we might resemble the Bereans of Acts 17, who searched the Scriptures daily—not because they always agreed, but because they earnestly sought truth together.

Finally, I believe it is vital for Christians to gather regularly rather than withdrawing into isolation because of disagreement. To worship as a “church of one” would represent the ultimate separation from the Body. Hebrews 10:25 exhorts us not to forsake assembling together, but to encourage one another—especially as the day approaches.

May God bless us all as we continue to seek Him.

 

originally written October 2014 - revised December 2025