Are There Doctrines Non-Essential to Salvation?
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
Any discussion on such a subject, non-essential truth, is a dangerous discussion. What is the bare minimum truth we need to hold? An attempt to minimize and streamline what God has revealed as that which man needs to be competent and equipped is the beginning of a slippery slope that many have gone down. However, the truth remains that there are genuine Christians who disagree on doctrines such as baptism, The Lord’s Supper, the end times, and yes even the cross and what was accomplished there. We must first state that this disagreement on such truths can only stem from sin and the fall. It appears we would be better served to state that there are doctrines that are more central to salvation than to call others non-essential. For instance, some would say baptism is non-essential in the discussion of salvation. However, there are others that tie this doctrine so closely with salvation that they end up teaching baptismal regeneration. Others would not teach such a doctrine but they practice it. So I hesitate to even speak of the sacraments as non-essential to salvation. Doctrine is a bit like a quilt. We have individual pieces, but they are all intertwined to produce one large goal. We may be able to appreciate and examine each individual piece for what it is, but they all are stitched together by God to reveal Himself.
Building on these points, it is important to note that we must think larger than just the individual when we call something non-essential. In calling doctrine non-essential we must ask to who’s salvation is such truth non-essential? You may know a friend that disagrees with you on a doctrine (let us stick with baptism), but you are convinced they are a believer. For that individual we could call the doctrine of baptism non-essential to their salvation. However, what about the generation the comes behind and that they disciple and teach. For instance, if that brother believes in infant baptism or even accepts catholic infant baptism, what damage may that have for subsequent generations? Surely, some could trust in that early, pre-conversion baptism and be deceived. For others, maybe the hold to a man centered gospel, where man’s will is the determining factor in salvation. In one case, someone like this may be a real believer, but what about others they disciple and lead to Christ? Could such doctrine not deter others from Christ?
May 15th, 2008 at 10:53 am
“It appears we would be better served to state that there are doctrines that are more central to salvation than to call others non-essential…We have individual pieces, but they are all intertwined to produce one large goal.”
It has always caused me some discomfort in my spirit whenever I hear or read about “agreeing on essentials while disagreeing on non-essentials.” I think you have started a good conversation here. Looking at what “doctrine” is, meaning something “taught”, then you have stated a good point — all doctrine is important.
Why? Because they intertwine and interact with each other in such a way that to remove one will take away from the integrety of the entire purpose of all the doctrines.
Well said.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:52 am
ESSENTIAL = “absolutely necessary, indispensable”.
SALVATION (see Thayer’s) = “Deliverance, Safety, Preservation, Saved from
So doesn’t Essential truth for salvation mean “Absolutely necessary to be saved (redeemed) from the consequences of my sin, which is eternal separation from God into everlasting torment” ?
With those terms being defined, let’s just stick to your post’s header directly without getting into the other ramifications and discuss actual doctrine or truth that one must believe to be accepted by and reconciled to God. That is what “essential for salvation” means if I understand correctly. If there is more to it than that please help me understand better. “Essential for christian growth” or “essential for discipleship” or “essential for something else might be really important for a variety of reasons, and maybe I’m being picky by trying to focus on the “salvation” part, but isn’t that the whole point of this conversation?
Todd
May 16th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Todd,
What I am saying is that we have to be very careful is narrowing down to what is essential to salvation. I think we could easily say the baptism is not essential to salvation, even the doctrine of eternal security it not essential, views of end times are not essential, etc. However, many of these doctrines have developed into things that blur salvation.
Bring up some verses where God reduces doctrine to simply the essential and lets look at those. I want to examine if reducing doctrine to simply that which is essential for salvation is even a biblical way of thinking. Don, you have spoken in the past about the use of sound words, what do you think? I guess the other question that would tie into this would be, is this reducing salvation to a level that it falls short of what Salvation truly is?
Don’t get me wrong, I know what you are asking Todd. Maybe it is just semantics, but the ideas of being central and essential seem to carry differing consequences.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Andy,
Touché ! Now I’ll have to shape up or ship out.
All,
1) Pattern of sound words
IITim1:12-14 is where “pattern” comes from.
””12 For which cause I suffer also these things: yet I am not ashamed; for I know him whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that he is able to guard that which I have committed unto him against that day. 13 Hold the pattern of sound words which thou hast heard from me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was committed unto thee guard through the Holy Spirit which dwelleth in us.
Paul’s appointment as a preacher, apostle, teacher (v11) and with sufferings would prove not to be futile because he knew Christ would guard what Paul had committed to Him (his soul and the fruit of Paul’s labor in these offices). Paul, in turn, tells Timothy to guard the good thing that was committed to Timothy (possibly the gift of God, v6). And right in between these verses about guarding the treasures of Christianity is verse 13. “Hold the pattern of sound words”. The placement of this verse is striking. We would be on safe ground when we teach or discuss truth and concepts while employing Biblical terminology and phraseology (the pattern of sound words).
This is a demanding requirement. Was it a requirement for Timothy only? I think it is fair to assume that this imperative is for all time, as long as there are teachers and preachers. It should make us cry out “who is sufficient for these things?” (IICor 2:16).
We don’t find terms like “(non-)essential truth” in Scripture. But neither is the word “Trinity” to be found. The development of theological terms has always been a painstaking process, often requiring decades and centuries, counsels and debates. If we were to attempt to establish from square-one the Biblical warrant for most of the terminology we use, it would require a few lifetimes. Fortunately Hebrews 6:1-2 gives a precedence to move on to perfections beyond just the foundations.
“Wherefore leaving the doctrine of the first principles of Christ, let us press on unto perfection; not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the teaching of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.”
Ahhhh….. Move on? Not so fast. This very text tells us that there are foundational truths. What are they in this text? Repentance, faith, baptisms, laying on of hands, the resurrection, judgment.
So perhaps the “pattern of sound words” would suggest that this discussion might better be served using “foundational truths” instead of “essential truths”. At least we have made a start!
2) Foundational truths
Doesn’t Heb 6:1-2 clear up the issue of whether all truth is in the same category? Some truths are foundational and some are not.
Andy,
I greatly appreciate the care which you used to distinguish between the individual’s coming to faith in Christ vs. what happens to following generations who might find the clarity of truth being obscured by a minimalistic formulation of “saving faith” in this generation. That is a very important consideration, which should make our adherence to IITim1:12-14 even greater.
(A friend wrote an amazing song about this very subject….”Time will Tell”)
All,
I think this discussion started out with just the individual in mind. IITim 3:16 is comprehensive for all generations and the individuals within each.
But for the sake of Christians who might be wavering with their assurance, I will restrict my focus to their needs. Ernie Reisinger’s book Today’s Evangelism explores the subject of what is “coming to faith?” in some detail. Is it walking the isle? Is it assenting to a belief system? Is it acknowledging the historicity of Jesus as a martyr or example? Have you done enough? Do you still sin?
For the INDIVIDUAL:
There is “saving faith” (Heb 10:39b) that is different than “.. grow[ing] in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. IIPeter 3:18
There is “definitive sanctification” and there is “progressive sanctification”.
For example, Apollos was mighty in the scriptures and a Christian, but needed to have truth explained to him more accurately.
Acts 18: Now a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by race, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spake and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John: and he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more accurately.
Knowledge and understanding are not infused automatically when God takes out the heart of stone and puts in the heart of flesh and writes His law upon it (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26). What is infused is love for God, not Systematic Theology. Knowledge comes “line upon line” Isaiah 28:10, and by learning from those “able to instruct others also” IITim 2:2.
There are minimum knowledge/belief requirements about the person and work of Christ, and our personal obligations of confession, repentance and faith, regarding which when faith is exercised, we are saved. And without which, our faith is vain.
The following texts are but a sample. They don’t address the other foundational truths of baptisms, laying on of hands, judgment, since no issue of salvation is bound to doing or believing on (or about) them. I could have missed something.
Christ
John 8;24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad. 57 The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am.
John 5:18 For this cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only brake the sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God. 19 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner. 20 For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth: and greater works than these will he show him, that ye may marvel. 21 For as the Father raiseth the dead and giveth them life, even so the Son also giveth life to whom he will. 22 For neither doth the Father judge any man, but he hath given all judgment unto the Son; 23 that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father that sent him. 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life.
Ourselves
Rom 10:9 because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: 10 for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be put to shame. 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek: for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich unto all that call upon him: 13 for, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
II Cor 7:10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation, a repentance which bringeth no regret: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
Hebrews 6:1 foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God
Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked; but now he commandeth men that they should all everywhere repent
Psalm 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: A broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
May 18th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Don, I greatly appreciate you diving into the difference between “saving faith” and “growing in the grace and knowledge of.” Reason Being:
All:
As we have discussed this the question that has continually come to my mind is if someone reads this who may not believe exactly the way we do, will they leave the discussion feeling that because they don’t hold to identical “theology” they are not converted? Or, is there certain theology that I have to hold to in order to be saved? If we are not careful we take those questions one step further we conclude that salvation is dependent on me, and what doctrine I hold to.
Now, my problem is that I’m sitting in a hotel room in arkansas, I don’t like answering questions till I hear you alls opinions on them. But, due to the fact that i’m unsure about the next few days, I wrote my initial thoughts at markedrestlesswanderer.blogspot.com but i’m very interested in hearing your thoughts.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Shane,
Here is a my initial response to your questions. Absolutely there is a certain theology that one must hold to in order to be saved. When Paul said he preached Christ and him crucified, he was not minimializing the gospel. Paul wanted to explain to the Romans what the gospel was, 16 chapters later we have the book of Romans. Paul wanted to describe his thankfulness about Christ, he could not help but speak of the doctrine of predestination to those in Ephesus. Paul warned the Galatians boldly
6I am astonished that you are(L) so quickly deserting(M) him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to(N) a different gospel— 7(O) not that there is another one, but(P) there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
Not because they were not preaching Christ, but because they were distorting the gospel of Christ with bad theology. Paul did not say “Hey you guys are Christians, I know that, so this is not really a big deal. This is non-essential, but I thought I would point it out for your edification or Christian growth.”
Scriptures warn us clearly that we are to hold fast to the Apostles teachings, and give warnings about falling away from them.
Second: Unity and peace is found in truth.
2with all(A) humility and(B) gentleness, with(C) patience,(D) bearing with one another in love, 3eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in(E) the bond of peace. 4There is(F) one body and(G) one Spirit—just as you were called to the one(H) hope that belongs to your call—
who is this spirit? The Spirit of Truth.
How do we know if someone is saved? We can see fruit, but honestly, we do not know the hearts of men and women. If one is wrong theologically, but we want to say they are okay, are we not in essence saying we know their heart even though the truth they hold to is not the apostles teaching? Therefore, if the truths that are foundational to their faith are in error, should we not have concern? The apostles and Christ spoke of the deception of the end times. The scriptures teach of the deception of natural man’s heart. We have church history to show generations of those who claimed to love Christ, deceived because of bad theology.
The logical conclusion of striving for right theology, truth, is not making salvation dependent upon us, but making sure our faith is sure.
It is not trust in a system or denomination, but making sure our view of Christ is proper according to who he has revealed himself to be and that our saving faith is what he describes as saving faith. Salvation is not dependent upon me, but it is dependent upon doctrine.
Third, questioning one’s salvation because of bad theology is not a bad thing. Salvation is an already, not yet thing. We are taught that many that say they hold to Christ and work for him will be told to depart from him on the day of judgment. We are told that there will be those among us who go away and were not really of us. We are taught to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. The questioning ought to drive one to the Word, Christ, to find out who he is and whether their faith is truly in Him.
This discussion has not been to say I am right and no one can differ from me. This discussion has been for the purpose of determining that truth matters, it makes a difference. No one should differ from Christ’s and the apostles teaching, that is dangerous and hazardous to one’s soul. No one has ever said you have to be a baptist to be a Christian. No one has ever said you have to be a Calvinist to be a Christian. (You can add other statements) However, we are attempting to demonstrate that these truths are deeply important and can have eternal ramifications.
If one is seeking truth and cares about the scripture I believe they should be able to amen the points that have been made, even if they disagree with me on theological in other posts. We ought to be striving towards a spirit of unity founded in the Word.