Mike: here are a few essentials, to me…see if you agree.

Christ Crucified and Risen
God is Sovereign
Original Sin
Virgin Birth
(there are more)

A few non-essentials:

The role of homosexuals in the Church
The question of who can be ordained
Evolution vs Creation
What does “divine inspiration of Scripture” mean?
(there are lots more for this list)

Christ Crucified and Risen
God is Sovereign
Original Sin
Virgin Birth

Of these for me, God is, resurrection and eternal life, and sin. There are more.

I will accept the belief that the story is perfect, and that every aspect, fact, and demonstration of it is essential and serves God.

I will not use that belief to judge another.

Hs,

This can get a bit convoluted if we don’t air one important factor. There are essential doctrines for salvation (If you don’t buy into them you could be called a cult of Christianity)
and then there are essential doctrines that you don’t really need to understand or believe to have salvation, but are not left open for debate in sctripture. (things that you have to agree on

-The diety and humanity of Christ (otherwise the next one doesn’t mean much)
-Christ Crucified and Risen
-God is Sovereign
-Original Sin (the depravity of humanity ie we all need salvation)
-Virgin Birth (essential but you can probably be saved without understanding or accepting this)
-Triunity of God (same as for virgin birth)

-The role of homosexuals in the Church (essential, but not for salvation – anybody LIVING an openly immoral lifestyle has no role in church leadership)
-The question of who can be ordained (essential, this is not left just something arbitrarily decided by men, it’s in scripture.)
-Evolution vs Creation (God has to be the creator to be sovereign, so this is an essential. There is room for argument over how God created, but he did create)
-What does “divine inspiration of Scripture” mean? (I would say we don’t have to understand what it means, but it is essential to accept that scripture is in fact from God, or we have to question the above list of obvious essentials)

-Understanding of endtimes eschatology and prophecy
-Understanding of spiritual gifts (tounges, etc.)
-Understanding of the role of baptism (accept that you should be baptized)

Norman Geisler wrote really good 2 part article for the Christian Research Journal on this, both from a historic and logical approach. I’ll post a link when I find it.

Another-
also, it’s more about not screaming where scripture whispers than finding ways to judge. But, we should unite around truth, and we need to all agree on what that is and not allow lies to infiltrate. That’s not judging, that’s discerning.

Hi Mike,

Thank you for responding. I will make a quick reply and then read your post more completely.

“God is Soveriegn” is a good example. For me, when I read the Bible I hear God call himself “I am”. To Moses, “I am who I am.” For me, God is.

It is not for me to declare more for God than he does for himself.

My church has many prayers and hymns that declare God soveriegn. I will accept “God is soveriegn” in praise and exaltation, but not as definition.

Khalid Shah shared a quote from his text and I was struck by its poignancy.

Woe to those who define God.

When I read that it brings me to my knees. I am overwhelmed with reverence and humbleness.

Many well intentioned people feel compelled to add something, but we do so for ourselves. As humans, I believe we must toil to remain clear.

Mike and Another: Thanks for the comments. Allow me to expand my thought…

The “non-essentials” I mention are those doctrinal points that lead to what one could call the “Church Divided”. Example: Anytime we come up with a list of Sins that are forbidden, then we also create a list of Sins that are to be ignored by default. So, to say to the Homosexual: “you are a worse sinner than me” is ultimately a very, very dangerous statement.

Disclaimer: I do not accept Biblical Literalism as the right way to go. At it’s base, is an assumption that “I” am capable of clear understanding. I was taught, and I believe, that there are many layers to even the simplest Biblical text, and literalism only focuses on the top, shallowest layer. Hence, as an example, I read the first 3 chapters of Genesis, right along with understanding part of modern Cosmology and Molecular Biology…and see no contradictions.

As far as essentials go, I’m an old-line Reform Calvinist. Good Old 5 point Calvinism about sums it up.

Absolute Sovereignty
Utter Depravity
Irresistible Grace
Unconditional Election
Free Will

For an exposition, there is an excellent book called “The Institutes of the Christian Religion” that explains it all. Of course, it was written over 400 years ago, in Genevan French….but hey, that’s the challenge.

Am I getting it? (or is it literal, chuckle)

Absolute Sovereignty - God
Utter Depravity - Sin
Irresistible Grace - Forgiveness
Unconditional Election - God
Free Will - Choice

Unconditional Election occurs for me as a very human intellectual construct to explain a seemingly unreconciled aspect of God and the world.

Another,
Declaring what God has defined about Himself is entirely different that defining God. We praise Him for who He is. Without being able to know about Him, we cannot know Him, and would be hopelessly lost without chance of salvation. In other words, how can you follow something you cannot describe? The basic attributes of that something define it, so without them you cannot know it, and furthermore could not discern it from a something different. So if I ask you what God you serve, not by name, or by affiliation with Isreal or the Bible, how do you describe Him to me? You have to understand and then declare the attributes He has revealed to us.

hs,
I really do agree that we make an unfairly big deal out of homosexual sin (but I would maintain that homosexual BEHAVIOR-not inclination or temptation-is in fact sinful). It is not worse than any other sin. I would add that I would no sooner be able to allow a practicing alcoholic, spouse abuser, heterosexual cohabiter, etc., to hold position of authority of any kind in a church. It’s not about just homosexuality, but about being actively and unrepentantly involved in sinful lifestyle that disqualifies you. Overall, we are very wrong in a heavy-handed treatment of homosexuality, after all we are to bring the gospel to all.

On election, I know the hardline Calvinist (darn fundamentalists…) in you would consider this an essential. I would argue that it may be an important issue, but there is so precious little in scripture regarding it that I think it cannot be considered a real essential. You don’t need to understand or believe it for salvation, it doesn’t affect what or who you reach out to, how you are to act, and is therefore not worth dividing over…but debate over it is clearly a good thing.

Regarding Biblical literality, I think there is a certain degree of it we have to accept or we would be in a chaotic situation of believing anything about any essential subject, and would again have no assurance of salvation. For example the gospel account has to be taken pretty literally regarding Christ, His crucifixion and resurrection. But I would say that full out literality is not necessarily an essential required for salvation.

On origins, do you accept at very minimum that God is the creator regardlessof method? By that, He spoke and all that exists came about (one way or the other) and that everything did not come from nothing without Him? That’s where I would draw the line on an essential doctrine of God as the creator (sticking with the basics required for salvation viewpoint).

On a side note (and maybe for a different day’s discussion), I would argue your point about evolution and it’s agreement with scripture: if for no other reason because a cruel, unguided process that requires much death does not really mesh with the concept of an un-fallen world.

Here are the Geisler articles I mentioned plus a good article on why essentials are important that cites Geisler:
http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2708569/k.B787/JAE1001.htm

http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2708579/k.B7B7/JAE1002.htm

http://www.equip.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=muI1LaMNJrE&b=4126537&content_id=%7BD2E77A22-D435-45B9-AEBB-BD37505C7122%7D&notoc=1

Hi Mike,

On last observation and I am complete. I appreciate your staying engaged.

Soveriegn - a monarch; a king, queen, or other supreme ruler.

It occurrs as worldly and limiting.

Again, Moses asked who should I say you are, and the answer is clear, “I am who I am.”

I would suggest it is human and archaic, was created in world view of monarchies battling for divine authority, and like much doctrine had a wordly intent, in this case to shift loyalty in a system of monarchs to one supreme ruler.

King of Kings. as it were.

It seems inappropriate for us to make such a claim.

I can’t imagine enough words to put after the declaration that he is.

Thanks for listening.

Mike,

I read something else you wrote, and I want to share something I believe is essential to believing.

It is the word.

I believe that it is essential to acknowledge that God spoke the world into existence. How that manifested itself, I do not have to reconcile to believe.

It is essential that God declared it for himself. Creation is the manifestation of intent.

Intelligtent or not, it is intentional.

As a being it is contrary to my existence to dismiss my choices in the matter of my being to chance.

I am a being of power, created in the image of a being of power. If I accept that, then my choices, responsibility, and consequence leaves nothing to chance, and everything to who I say I am and have the integrity to be.

There is what is, and there is who I declare myself to be.

I believe that it is the power of my speaking, that creates the possiblity for my transformation.

The word made flesh. It can not happen without relationship and the listening for me as a being.

God’s creation of us put the listening for him into existence. He is complete, we are complete.

Consider the baby, that first gasp, breath, and cry. What I hear is “I am!”

Mike,

“Regarding Biblical literality, I think there is a certain degree of it we have to accept”

I hear something in this, another distinction may be to see what is esential and what is of value.

There is one moment in reading the Bible, among many, but one that touched me in a deep and moving way.

It is the story of the women in the town who was about to be stoned by those around her for sinning, and Jesus stopped and confronted those who were judging her with the call to be responsible for themselves.

“Who among you….”

It made a difference for me in my life.

Who am I to say what is the most important aspect of the story to believe. Who am I to say what small word, detail, or act will touch another and make the difference in their lives.

I believe it all serves a purpose.

The distinction may be me that we create distractions when we debate what is essential. If we declare for another what they must believe, it will generate an automatic defense to question us. There is nothing wrong with that, it is who we are as human beings (orignal sin).

Jesus is a master of being the truth. He stepped aside from argument and debate. His most telling remark, for me, is in John. He is asked who he is, badgered to declare himself for them (we beleive to cause him to misstep). Finally in frustration (I imagine) he asks, “Who do you say I am?”

We must each come to him, on our own, supported by each other and him.

The story is essential. No soul is less than any one part of it.

Do I demand a beleiver believe it, by declaring it essential? No. That would be something else.