Essential Doctrines

[Salty]

On another thread, Deacon stated: (post # 4)

...a statement of faith can be a point of separation from others or it can seek to bring together others of diverse background, seeking to unite them in the essentials"

Very interesting statement -
what are some doctrines that would cause you to separate from others (within a local church)
What are some doctrines that would bring you together?

What are some doctrines that you could compromise on?

 

[Salty]

no compromise
Salvation by grace thur faith ( as opposed to baptismal regeneration)
No women pastors
Miracles of the Old and NT

 

[The Biblicist]

This is a question which if left to personal opinions has no unified answer. However, if left to Biblical principles I can define "essential" as follows:

1. Every doctrine and practice is essential that the Scripture explicitly states or necessarily infers there are no other options, or is a "must" for eternal life or acceptable service.

2. Every doctrine and practice that is essential to distinguish NT Christianity from other world religions and prophetic apostate Christianity.

3. Every doctrine and practice that is essential to preserve and defend the above two essentials (inspiration/preservation and final authority of the scriptures, etc.).

 

[Salty]

This is a question which if left to personal opinions has no unified answer. However, if left to Biblical principles ...

But those "personal opinions" need to be based on Scripture.

 

[The Biblicist]

But those "personal opinions" need to be based on Scripture.

The PRINCIPLES I offered are based on scripture and only on Scripture. Using these principles as the Biblical premise then a precise structure of essential doctrines and practices can be formulated correctly.

 

[Salty]

The PRINCIPLES I offered are based on scripture and only on Scripture. ...

I am looking more for specifics

 

[The Biblicist]

I am looking more for specifics

Well, what doctrines in the Bible use the words "must" or equivilent expressions, or by necessary inference insist there are no other alternatives. For example, "except a man be born again he cannot enter....see.." For example, "If any man...preaches another gospel....let him be accursed." For example "I am the way the truth and the life NO MAN COMETH TO THE FATHER EXCEPT by me"

What doctrines are essential to distinguish NT Christianity from all other pagan world religions? For example the doctrine of the Trinity. For example the doctrine of the final authority, inspiration and preservation of the Bible. For example, the complete deity and humanity of Christ. For example.......

 

[Deacon]

The book I was reading that promoted the opening posts statement was, "Evangelical Convictions, a theological exposition of the statement of faith of the evangelical free church of America" (2011).

The denomination draws its members from Lutheran, Reformed, Armenian, Wesleyan, tests, paedobaptists, dispensationalists and covenantalists. (p. 25).

Its doctrinal statement is conservative, simple, evangelical and above all, Christ-honoring.

Their position regarding baptism is a bit curious!

Presenting the baptist theological position of believer's baptism by immersion ..."It is the biblically prescribed public action that corresponds to a personal response of faith to the gospel." (p. 171).

It also states: "The practice of baptizing infants of believing parents, also allowed under our Statement, has to be understood in a different way."

The footnote says, "We recognize that the interpretation of Scripture on the relevant points ... are in some ways incompatible. ... However, we do not believe that our differing views on this matter (among others) should prevent our unity in the gospel in full local church fellowship. It is in this sense, and only in this sense, that the Statement of Faith 'allows' both views."

Rob

 

[Deacon]

I'm quite comfortable sitting in a church that has a wide-eyed view of acceptable doctrines... particularly because I usually fall outside of many believers opinion of "acceptable doctrine".

The church I attend, in times past while I was an elder, fellowshipped with a number of local congregations, meeting together for special services and cooperating in youth events.

One of those congregations was a SBC "Lordship"-preaching church (we are of the free-grace persuasion).

We felt that Christian unity over-ruled the debate and accepted the fellowship. ... After a few years their pastor decided that the disagreement was more important and left the community of churches that fellowship together.

Rob

 

[The Biblicist]

The footnote says, "We recognize that the interpretation of Scripture on the relevant points ... are in some ways incompatible. ... However, we do not believe that our differing views on this matter (among others) should prevent our unity in the gospel in full local church fellowship. It is in this sense, and only in this sense, that the Statement of Faith 'allows' both views."

Rob

Salvation has to do with individuals, not with church status. Church status is a post-salvation occurrence that has to do with serving God acceptably. So, to argue church fellowship based on salvation status is absurd. Church status has to do with serving God acceptably with the presumption that salvation status is a settled question before entering into any church fellowship. Church fellowship is based upon serving God in a united fashion as previously saved. Church fellowship has to do with fellowshipping in the ordinances as saved members.

It is impossible to have true church fellowship with paedobaptists who not only bring unregenerates into church fellowship but the vast majority of the membership entered into church fellowship as unregenerates rather than as born again believers. Paedobaptism reverses the Great Commission from baptizing and adding believers to church fellowship to baptizing and adding unbelievers to church membership.

Where there is no valid baptism there is no church existence. Such an idea of an unbaptized church cannot be found in scriptures, cannot be found in precepts of the scriptures but both precepts and examples clearly repudiate it.

 

[Deacon]

"The Biblicist" said...It is impossible to have true church fellowship with paedobaptists...


You'd have to read their expositional statement to follow their reasoning.
I won't argue it but wouldn't have a problem worshiping in their congregation (I'd fit right in, being of Scandinavian background myself).

The first church I attended after salvation was a Swedish Covenent congregation just a block from my home in Northbrook, IL (walked there myself).

It wouldn't be "impossible" for me to fellowship there again.

********
I'd have great trouble worshiping in a fanatical KJVO congregation... or even one where it was an issue.

I have difficulty with congregations having a young-earth doctrinal statement... although my pastor preaches it (ugggh...).

I couldn't worship in a Catholic service. Not because of my inability but because I know that my beliefs are incompatible and unacceptable with their doctrine. I'd be an intruder.

Rob

 

[Jerome]

the evangelical free church of America....Their position regarding baptism is a bit curious!

Is it ever!

Historically, they have typically ignored baptism.

Evangelical Free pastor (on the council of Calvinist fraternity 'The Gospel Coalition') Bill Kynes wrote:

"When it comes to baptism, I consider myself fairly typical in the Evangelical Free Church of America. By that I mean that baptism has not played a prominent part in my pastoral ministry."

2005 EFCA Ministerial Forum

EFCA President Bill Hamel concurred:

"In the three Free Churches I attended as a child and young man, baptism was ignored"

 

[Jerome]

In a 2013 doctrinal survey of EFCA ministers, a majority still did not believe that baptism (of any sort) should be required for church membership:

https://go.efca.org/resources/document/efca-doctrinal-survey

 

[JonC]

But those "personal opinions" need to be based on Scripture.

Most of the time they are not "personal opinions" but different interpretations.

I've been thinking about the topic, and I don't think I can come up with a definitive list. I would leave a church that was not faithful to the gospel, that did not hold to a baptistic view of believers baptism. I would leave a church that denied eternal security, or that failed to judge sin within the church. I would separate from a church that required a Calvinistic belief, but I would also separate from a church that became anti-Calvinistic. I could add to the list so many things - the role of women, contemporary issues of gender, philosophy of leadership (pastor lead, congregational lead, etc.), focus on doctrine and it's importance to the church, depth of doctrine, degree of tolerance, ect.

Individually, however, I suppose I am more tolerant of a variety of interpretations within the congregation itself. Men have different understandings and reasoning (we do not all think the same). Christians are also at various levels of learning and maturity in Christ. I would not necessarily expect a brother who is learning to have already accepted a view of what he is trying to grasp. Individually, fellowship depends strictly on the gospel. If that person is a Christian (insofar as I can discern by his words and deeds), then he has my hand in fellowship.

 

[HankD]

Required: An acceptance of:

The Bible is the word of God by inspiration, preservation and derivation.
The traditional doctrine of the Trinity - God is three persons in one divine essence.
The Deity of Christ.
The Hypostatic Union.
The Kenosis.
The Doctrine of Salvation by grace through faith apart from works.
The Gospel - Salvation through faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The Continuance of the Great Commission.
The future bodily return of the resurrected and glorified Jesus Christ.
The Baptist Distinctives.

HankD

 

[Salty]

Required: An acceptance of:

The Baptist Distinctives.

HankD

One of the Baptist distinctives is the offices of Pastor and Deacons -
So if you had a multi-elder led church?

 

[HankD]

One of the Baptist distinctives is the offices of Pastor and Deacons -
So if you had a multi-elder led church?

Not a problem.

HankD

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis (member of the Church of England if memory serves) is an excellent and in depth discussion of the matter. The word 'mere' in the title reflects the idea of 'plain' or 'unadorned', not a derogatory term.

My uncompromisable factors are:

The existence of God.
The nature of God. (Trinity, Eternality, Omniscience, Omnipresence (time as well as space), Omnipotence, Loving, Just, Generous and so on...) As a corollary, God knows what He is about.
Mankind is fatally flawed, due to mankind's intents and actions.
Salvation is needed by Mankind. Salvation entails God's Grace and Christ's death and resurrection.
Followers of God through Jesus are expected to 'mimic' (not sure of a better word) God's attributes in all cases. For most of us, that means 'striving to mimic'.

There are probably 'details' within these which I didn't mention. For instance, 'witnessing' and the Great Commission particulars are contained in the "Followers...are expected..." clause.

I think books have been written on this subject. The Bible comes to mind.

 

[Yeshua1]

On another thread, Deacon stated: (post # 4)

...a statement of faith can be a point of separation from others or it can seek to bring together others of diverse background, seeking to unite them in the essentials"

Very interesting statement -
what are some doctrines that would cause you to separate from others (within a local church)
What are some doctrines that would bring you together?

What are some doctrines that you could compromise on?

Must agree on trinity, sinners, Jesus death is atonement m saved by grace alone/faith alone second coming, Bible inspired

Can disagree on bible version used, mode of secong coming, water baptism , spitual gifts

Deny trinity/ deny Jesus is God deny . real Gospel accept word of faith etc no fellowship!

 

[InTheLight]

"The Biblicist" said...It is impossible to have true church fellowship with paedobaptists...


You'd have to read their expositional statement to follow their reasoning.
I won't argue it but wouldn't have a problem worshiping in their congregation (I'd fit right in, being of Scandinavian background myself).

The first church I attended after salvation was a Swedish Covenent congregation just a block from my home in Northbrook, IL (walked there myself).

It wouldn't be "impossible" for me to fellowship there again.

Interesting, as I have a similar story. I sent my kids to a Christian school that belonged to the Wisconsin Synod Lutheran Church. They preach and teach the new birth, that is a person needed to have a repentance experience and put their faith and trust in Jesus and Jesus alone. They did baptize infants as a sort of dedication ceremony. They confirm teenagers as a prerequisite for taking communion. I have attended several of their church services and I could fellowship with them, but ultimately I would have to attend regularly at a Baptist church.

I'd have great trouble worshiping in a fanatical KJVO congregation... or even one where it was an issue.

Yes, me too. I grew up in KJVO and I really can't abide by that teaching.

I have difficulty with congregations having a young-earth doctrinal statement... although my pastor preaches it (ugggh...).

So does my pastor. I don't have difficulty with it (I'm in the 'I don't know camp' when it comes to the age of the Earth) but I wouldn't want it to be a featured doctrine or one that was used to separate the congregation. I've learned that my church had Ken Ham speak there before I started attending. I was kind of glad that I missed it!

I couldn't worship in a Catholic service. Not because of my inability but because I know that my beliefs are incompatible and unacceptable with their doctrine. I'd be an intruder.

Yes! No kidding. I have trouble going to Catholic funerals.