In Essentials Unity

[RSS Robot]

Enlarged and updated December 7, 2010 (first published March 18, 2010) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

The modern evangelical philosophy is often stated by the dictum, “In essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things charity.”

Though commonly attributed to Augustine, it was actually first stated by the 17th-century Lutheran Rupertus Meldenius (a.k.a. Peter Meiderlin).

It became the rallying cry of the Moravians, who did many good things but retained such Roman heresies as infant baptism and a priesthood and promoted unity above the absolute truth of God’s Word.

It was adopted by the Fundamentalist movement of the first half of the 20th century. As a movement Fundamentalism focused on unity around “the fundamentals of the faith” while downplaying the “minor issues.” The OBjective was to create the largest possible united front against theological modernism.

This dictum has also been an integral philosophy of New Evangelicalism. They might stand for ten or twenty or thirty “cardinals,” but they refuse to make an issue of the WHOLE counsel of God. Particularly when it comes to one’s associations, they believe that there are “non-essentials” that should not get in the way of unity.

Many Independent Baptists are buying into this error.

View the full article

[Covenanter]

The OBvious question is "What are the essentials of the Christian faith?"

Cloud rejects the principle, but even he must see that whether a church has 39 articles (CofE) or 9 (FIEC which I belong to) none of us have perfect understanding of Scripture. To what extent should we keep completely separate from other Bible-believing evangelical Christians, or how closely can we unite with others for whom Jesus prayed for unity?

[John81]

The OBvious question is "What are the essentials of the Christian faith?"

Cloud rejects the principle, but even he must see that whether a church has 39 articles (CofE) or 9 (FIEC which I belong to) none of us have perfect understanding of Scripture. To what extent should we keep completely separate from other Bible-believing evangelical Christians, or how closely can we unite with others for whom Jesus prayed for unity?

That seems to be the area of disagreement.

[Crushmaster]

I hate that saying. There are "non-essentials" to salvation, but not in doctrine. We are to believe truth, the only truth, from God's Word. We aren't free to believe "whatever we like" about "non-essentials."

Didn't agree with everything he said, but interesting thoughts.
God bless,
Joel ><>.
2 Chronicles 7:14.

[John81]

I agree, it's not a good saying as it basically is stating that some of what God said to us is important but the rest of it isn't really that important.

We are all to grow in the truth and most assuredly the church we attend and our closest friends should be walking in the truth of Scripture.

There are some who have different views on how to view or put into practice some aspects of Scripture yet they are clearly our brothers/sisters in Christ and there is room for some dealings.

However, there are also those who proclaim we either can't know about some things so they have a "who cares" attitude toward them or they declare some things just aren't important at all so folks are free to do whatever they want in those areas. Both positions reveal a heart prOBlem and we must be wary of any association with such.

[Bro Jim]

"non-essentials" slippery slope, where does it stop. The Morons believe that Jesus is the savior of the body, but their religion is the savior of the soul. Do we then fellowship with them?

Edited December 8, 2010 by Bro Jim

[Covenanter]

"non-essentials" slippery slope, where does it stop. The Morons believe that Jesus is the savior of the body, but their religion is the savior of the soul. Do we then fellowship with them?

Non essentials are areas/doctrines where true evangelical Christians disagree. We will of course disagree as to where to draw the line.

Would IFBs insist on separation from the KJV translators - who were paedOBaptist?

Or those anabaptists who practised pouring?

Or preterists, or pre, mid or post trib premils?

Or the Pilgrim Fathers who preferred their Geneva Bible?

Or those who insist on Psalm singing only?

It's not a "slippery slope" if you know where you stand, & understand that your own interpretation of Scripture is not necessarily held by all Christians.

[Bro Jim]

I reckon I mean where does it stop. Do we become ecumenical? I know where I stand on Baptist doctrine. Do I compromise it, to get along. I understood that the non-essentials issue is that kind of thing that leads us to decide that what ever you want to believe is okay, as long as I can believe what I want to believe.
ie:
*King James Bible issue, KJB only, or is the Americanize version okay, do we accept the counterfeits (I don't mean the MVs)?
*Lord's Supper; open, closed, close.
*Salvation; Lordship salvation, easy believe-ism,

Not to start a discussion on these things just examples what do we decide is essentials and non-essentials.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Bro Jim

[no name joe]

Many portions of the Scripture can be intepreted and applied differently by different people. The essentials to salvation cannot be interpreted differently. There are essentals to the Christian faith. However, many issues are interpreted different ways be God fearing people. If we say we must agree on everything, then whose interpretation are we going to apply? What if we cannot agree on an interpretation or doctrine? Are we to part ways, or agree to disagree?

Some examples:

Muisc. I see nowhere in the Scripture that says we must use one style of music over another. Others believe taht only accapella music is permissible in church services since that is how the early chuch operated. Others say we must only use texts from the Scripture set to music. Should we part ways over this? It may be a reason for different churches and denominations, but I see no reason for it to split and divide Christian fellowship.

Calvanism v. Armenian views. Both are fully supported by Scripture. This is a mystery. How can God be all knowing, which he is, and not predestine some to salvation? If he knows all things, doesn't that mean he he has appointed some to go to heaven and some to hell? The Scripture says that all who believe will have eternal life. But it also says that God hardened Pharoh's heart and predestines us in Christ to salvation. What does all of this mean? People can have divergent views on this, and may and has given rise to denominations, but I can't say one is right and one is wrong. Both views are supported in Scripture. I tend to think no one has it fully figured out, and it will always remain a mystery. But if the essentials are there, which of these doctrines is right really does not matter. It doesn't. So while it may be fun to discusss, why do we let it divide fellowship with other believers and other denominations?

Baptism. This is a big one. Do we sprinkle, pour or immerse? I believe immersion is the best practice. However, those who sprinkle or pour have Scriptural support as well. They tend to see the new testament act of baptism as a carryover of Old Testament Jewish practices applied to the church. For example, the priests in the OT would sprinkle blood on the alter as a cleansing ritual to represent the purification that was taking place in the hearts of the Jewish people. They see it as God pours out his Holy Spirit on us, which cleanses our hearts. Symbolically, water is poured on us as a symbol of that purification. They point out that when people in the early church in Acts were baptized in households, they did not have bath tubs or large places to immerse, so sprinkling or pouring was the most likely mode. I'm not arguing for it, as I beleive immersion is the best practice when practical, which it largely is in our day. I am just saying that this is not an essential that should cause some to say that others are not Christian or are heretical in their practice, when in fact, there are very good reasons and support in the Scriputre for their practice. I may disagree with that interpretation, but I recognize and understand why they do it the way they do, and can still have fellowship with my brothers and sisters who do.

Wine. Some are teatotalers, others are not. Jesus made wine as a miracle at a wedding. I have no prOBlem with drinking an occassional glass of wine. Others do. That is fine and good, as I can see a valid interpretation in Scriputre for both positions. However, I do not see this as a reason to divide fellowship.

What should divide fellowship? If one denies that Jesus was God, if one believes that man is not inherently sinful and in need of a Savior, if one believes that salvation cannot come through Christ, or that he did not die, was not burried and did not raise again from the dead. Really the Apostle's Creed sums up the essentials of faith to me.

[Bro Jim]

I reckon that for me it boils down to this.

The Final Authority is the King James Bible. Which means the whole counsel, not bits and pieces to justify my point of view. We can prove just about anything with the Bible if we take it out of context.

So I am a Baptist that believes. The Book, The Blood, The Blessed Hope
.

[John81]

"non-essentials" slippery slope, where does it stop. The Morons believe that Jesus is the savior of the body, but their religion is the savior of the soul. Do we then fellowship with them?

A growing number of Christians are. The Mormons are quickly moving into becoming recognized as just another Christian denomination.

Scripture warns us against the false Jesus' out there but far too many Christians don't consider this. When they hear Glenn Beck and other Mormons mention Jesus they automatically assume they are referring to the biblical Jesus and just such mentions as "proof" they are Christian.

[John81]

Baptism, by the very word they used for this and even the examples given, is clearly immersion.

While there is room for a measure of fellowship with those who differ in some areas, the real prOBlem isn't in having some associations with these, but in the movement for all Christians to accept anyone calling themselves Christian regardless of their positions.

[Bro Jim]

A growing number of Christians are. The Mormons are quickly moving into becoming recognized as just another Christian denomination.

Scripture warns us against the false Jesus' out there but far too many Christians don't consider this. When they hear Glenn Beck and other Mormons mention Jesus they automatically assume they are referring to the biblical Jesus and just such mentions as "proof" they are Christian.

I know they are, I have been asked by Pentecostal Catholics, Jehovah Witness's, and another Pentecostal group if they could rent our facilities for their services. No, No way, and Definitely Not, was always the answer, we do not agree on doctrine(s) and it would be wrong for me to allow them to use it because it would appear to condone their beliefs.

I can eat next to them, I can dig a ditch along side them, but I cannot condone, preach beside or allow them to associate themselves with me/us. Where do the lines stop being erased and the one world religion starts.

The Hindus believe in 3 million +/- gods and they will include Jesus in them. Is that non-essential? Edited December 8, 2010 by Bro Jim

[Invicta]

I know they are, I have been asked by Pentecostal Catholics, Jehovah Witness's, and another Pentecostal group if they could rent our facilities for their services. No, No way, and Definitely Not, was always the answer, we do not agree on doctrine(s) and it would be wrong for me to allow them to use it because it would appear to condone their beliefs.

I can eat next to them, I can dig a ditch along side them, but I cannot condone, preach beside or allow them to associate themselves with me/us. Where do the lines stop being erased and the one world religion starts.

The Hindus believe in 3 million +/- gods and they will include Jesus in them. Is that non-essential?

There is a muslim group about 30 miles or so from here who accept christians and believe in Christ. They even believe in the 2nd coming, although when he comes, they say. it will be as a muslim. How mixed up can they get? Still I suppose many so called christians are just as mixed up. We had a pastor once who said, just after the war, he was with a group of students, "Gospel Trecking" that is going around the county taking services in schools, churches, etc. Oned of the group preached on the 2nd coming and afterwards someone came up to them and said he had never heard such teaching and wanted to know more. "Doesn't your minister believe in the second coming?" one of them asked, and one person replied: "That man doesn't believe in the first coming."

There was a news report about a year or so ago about an Anglican vicar who had taken time off to be a hindu priest in India. The stand in vicar, a woman of course said "We do actually prefer our ministers to be Christians."

In case you think that is peculiar to thisw side of the pond, just before that I read of two baptist pastors in the US, one was a Buddhist, the other was of hindu.

[JerryNumbers]

There are some issues in the Bible that we can agree to disagree on, yet most of them we cannot.

Not to get into a discussing and getting this topic side tracked, but Calvinism is not of the Bible, it is not something that I can agree to disagree on. Its totally false teaching just as recent issues of the Sword of the Lord laid out very clearly.

I like Crushmaster dislike the use of essential and non-essential. To me that says there are times that we can lay aside some truths for these truths are non-essential

Edited December 9, 2010 by Jerry80871852