Essential Christian Doctrine
February 18th, 2006Essential doctrine must have its basis in the Bible, where it will often be treated explicitly and at length. It leads one to reconciliation with and devotion to God. Essential doctrine is never in conflict with the Bible.
The Apostles’ Creed is a good example of essential doctrine. The existence of a powerful God and His work on earth through His son, resulting in our reconciliation with God, are treated in the Bible in detail.
The Apostles’ Creed is not the only example of essential doctrine. I count the command to love God and neighbor as well as the repeated calls to whole-hearted obedience as essential doctrine.
Doctrine which is not essential is often legalistic in nature: pressure to follow a set of rules. Examples include rules about drinking, the eating of meat, and the observance of holy days. Such matters may be dealt with in scripture. However, their elevation to “essential doctrine” is often characterized by obedience to God which is incomplete because love, the greatest commandment, is neglected.
This explanation is at once simplistic and difficult. It does not give me the answer I want, when I ask, “What about _____?” But it does gives a better answer in that it calls one to love and to obedience to God.
Why is it essential?
“If Christ has not been raised our preaching is useless and so is your faith.”
There’s one way to get to heaven and essential doctrine outlines that way. It first explains how that way was opened up and then gives an idea of what it looks like when one follows that way.
This isn’t related, but I wrote this because I was trying to decide what is worth fighting for (I don’t mean physically) and what is not….or what is a hill to die on and what isn’t!
As discussed, it seems the All Important Doctrines would be that Jesus is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead. These should be all we need in order to be saved, according to Romans 10:9.
Shannon,
I don’t see how your quotation from 1 Corinthians has anything to do with explaining why any particular doctrine is essential.
Let me rephrase my original question for any who want to comment: With reference to “essential doctrine”, what is the doctrine essential for? What is lost if one does not assent to that doctrine?
Um, the idea of being caught in the middle of two Shannons is a gruesome one indeed but — did we finish defining what essential means, etc.?
Hmmm…looks like I was logged in as Shannon when I posted. It certainly makes for an interesting exchange.
CJ
One possible answer is that ‘essential’ relates to salvation. I think this takes us back to works-based salvation. Salvation is by grace through faith, not because of any intellectual assent of doctrine.
So what is essential doctrine essential to?
I have at least two answers in mind.
1) Essential doctrine is essential for salvation. On this level the list is pretty short. I am thinking of very young children…and of the story I once heard of an adult who heard the name Jesus and knew she loved Him. Such persons don’t know much, but could very well be saved. I would guess that the people in the beginning of Acts 19 who had only received John’s baptism were saved…what do you all think of that?
2) I am more interested in the doctrine that is essential to one’s relationship to one’s church.
What points can we agree to disagree on and what must we agree on?
How much can we disagree and still be as one body? When are a person’s views are so wrong that they must be expelled from the church? Or where is the point at which you must remove yourself from a church? What’s worth fighting for? On which hills should I be prepared to die?
I think there might be more requirements here than there are for salvation.
One could be saved and not believe parts of the Bible were inspired or inerrant, but I can see myself leaving a church over that.
A note about works-based salvation: Works are a result of salvation, not a means to salvation. So if I am not demonstrating faith, love, good works, then I have to question where I am spiritually.
I think a common mistake is to elevate non-essential points of doctrine to the essential level while leaving out love. The result is unnecessary division.
Shannon says: “Works are a result of salvation, not a means to salvation.”
Shannon also says: “Essential doctrine is essential for salvation.”
I see a conflict between those two statements. Do you not believe that doctrine is a work of man? For if doctrine is a work and salvation is by faith and not by works, then salvation does not depend on doctrine. Or maybe this gets to the definition of ‘essential’ again?
Also when you say “doctrine that is essential to one’s relationship to one’s church”, you seem to be defining essential doctrine in a very relativistic fashion. You’re saying that the local church is the measuring stick for essential doctrine rather than it being a universal. Each local church can have a different set of essential doctrines in which case it seems fairly meaningless to me.
Isn’t it my definition of doctrine that is rather loose here? Instead of saying “essential doctrine is essential for salvation”, I should have said that essential doctrine on the salvation level is what one needs to have faith in to be saved. You don’t need to believe in a lot to be saved, but there are things you must believe in.
The relativism is hard to avoid. If I state that there are universal standards, am I then forced to agree that denominations are wrong?
Is faith equivalent to the intellectual assent of a statement or is there something more metaphysical or spiritual to it?
Re: relativism - Universal standards and denominations are not necessarily in conflict. For example, the Apostles’ Creed is often used to evaluate which denominations are orthodox.
Doesn’t it have to be more than intellectual assent since we aren’t dealing with assertions that can be proved human style? Faith inspires action…that could be a difference….I wouldn’t try to deny that there was something spiritual to faith!
I agree with your statement that universal standards and denominations are not necessarily in conflict.
Here’s an example I’m thinking of. In certain churches, my failure to speak in tongues would become a problem. I could be labeled as being filled with the Spirit, but not overflowing….I could be told that something was lacking. I could feel pressured to the point where I would have to change or leave.
Speaking in tongues is a non-essential issue. It would be wrong of me to start crusading against speaking in tongues…it would be decidedly unloving. It would be wrong of a church to insist that I speak in tongues. This is pretty easy for me if I do not attend that type of church. But what if that church starts to become like that? I guess it would only be appropriate to fight about it if the attempt was made to elevate the doctrine to essential status.
My point is that doctrine is by its very nature intellectual and so to base salvation or faith on doctrine is to require it to come first.