Is there such a thing as a non-essential doctrine? Spurgeon doesn't seem to think so. I don't think so either. All doctrines are essential. Some doctrines are not essential for salvation, and others not for expression of Christian unity. However, they are all essential in some manner or other. For example, one's view of baptism (paedo- vs. credo-) is not essential for salvation, nor of expression of Christian unity, but it IS essential for whether any two individuals can be in the same church. One's view of the doctrine of seperation is not essential for salvation, but it is definitely essential for the expression of Christian unity. Lastly, holding different eschatologies are not essential for salvation, nor of the expresion of Christian unity, and not even for fellowship within the same church. However, it will affect our obedience to God's Word.
From such examples, it can be seen that there is no such thing as a absolutely non--essential doctrine. The question we must ask ourselves is it is essential or non-essential for what purpose? For a Christian who is serious about following Christ, there is no such thing as non-essential doctrines, but yet he/she is mature enough to realize that the essentiality of each doctrine depends on the nature of the action that is under consideration, and thus act appropriately.
Some may ask how and by what standard we are to apply to know what level of essentiality each doctrine is at. This calls for spiritual discernment indeed and the application of general concepts instead of a lists of do's-and-don'ts. The overarching objective for all Christians should be the glory of God and obedience to the Word of God. Therefore, through these two judging principles and criteria, we can know the essentiality of any particular doctrine; whether it is essential for salvation, for unity etc.
In conclusion, it is hoped that all Christians should grow deeper in a love for God and take His Word and the doctrines it teaches more seriously. There is no such thing as a non-essential doctrine, and therefore we do not have the liberty to ignore a particular 'minor' doctrine just because there are disagreement over it between godly Christians. Such a scenario does not logically give rise to the postulate that the one who is wrong is somehow ungodly or that he must be demonized or even just less respected because of his wrong belief. It is probably a sad fact that such things do happen thus other Christians may react against it and swing to the other extreme of tolerance of any form of errors in the name of 'love'. At the very least, this has gave rise to the neglect of 'minor and divisive' doctrines, with such people of course coveniently forgetting that truth does divide (Lk. 12:51-53). May God help us to live out the balanced life and avoid either extreme.
Yar I agree wholeheartedly! (And I can quote scripture -- your favourite he he)! As it is written in 2 Tim 3:16, "ALL Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching in righteousness"!
ReplyDeleteNo two ways about this man ;)
Replying your email now!
Non-essential indicates that some committed Christians, Greek scholars and all the rest, disagree on what the Word teaches about that subject. It must on some level reveal that it was a divine non-essential or it would have been taught more clearly.
ReplyDeleteThe "truth divides" should mean with error, but how does "different truths" divide? We must have a general perspective on the core of gospel truth as opposed to morphed denominational distinctives. Your observation that born again believers cannot worship together due to non-essential truths is a flagrant anti-thesis to what heaven will be like.
And if eschatology affects someones committment to Christ then it is because the church has taught and argued it as an essential.
Hello Rick,
ReplyDeleteif it is a divine non-essential, why then is the truth found in the Bible, however vaguely it is thus found? If it is non-essential, can you honestly say with Paul that 'ALL Scripture is breathed out by God...' (2 Tim. 3:16)?
Note also that I nowhere said that 'different truths' divide. Obviously one of the competing truth claims is true while the other is false, just that we may not know which is the case this side of heaven. And in heaven, there wouldn't be any more competing truth claims on 'non-essential' doctrines, for when there we will know perfectly which is the truth and which is not, so your extrapolation from what is true on earth to what is true in heaven is false.
As an example, my friend Pastor Ken Silva is a credobaptist while I am a pedobaptist. One of us is true on this topic while the other is false. Obviously, I think he is wrong while he should think I am wrong on this topic, but we can still stand together in Christian unity on the Gospel and many other foundational issues. In heaven, I think that he will 'convert' to my position and he should think I will 'convert' to his position. Regardless of who is correct, both of us will embrace one single position on this topic when we are in heaven, and that gladly. So your extrapolation of non-uniformity on earth into the state of the church in heaven is wrong.
Regarding eschatology, I disagree with your assertion. One extreme counter-example I will raise to disprove your assertion is the system known as full preterism, whereby ALL the prophecies that relate to the return of Christ has been fulfilled and Jesus has already come again. Are you honestly going to say that embracing such a system will not affect your relationship with Christ?
In Christ alone,
Daniel Chew.