In Essentials Unity, In Non-essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity

[peterotto]

IN ESSENTIALS UNITY, IN NON-ESSENTIALS LIBERTY, IN ALL THINGS CHARITY

Exactly what is non-essential?
I know there has to be a few of you who are reading this use this phrase time to time. So I want to know from you, what is non-essential?

When I hear this, I think of things in the Bible that are non-essential(not important). My thinking is obviously wrong. From what I can gather from the Scriptures.

• Jesus said "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4).
• Paul preached the whole council of God. "For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God." Acts 20:27
• Joshua 1:8 "This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have success.

I didn't see any proverb saying we have non-essentials in the Word of God. So please explain what you think.
Thanks

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Peterotto: I didn't see any proverb saying we have non-essentials in the Word of God. So please explain what you think.

HP: How about this for starters. Scripture nowhere represents the unborn or infants as sinners, so it would be at best a non-essential to believe that they are. Would it not be enough for all to agree to accept the Scriptural and reasonable position that we all can agree on, that ‘all that come to the age of accountability, sin and become guilty before God?’

 

[Salty]

IN ESSENTIALS UNITY, IN NON-ESSENTIALS LIBERTY, IN ALL THINGS CHARITY ...Exactly what is non-essential?
Thanks

I would say the essentials would include the Virgin birth, death and literal ressurection of the Lord

Non-essentials would include type of music, standards of dress, Bible versions and ect. (thought some would insist these are essential Bible doctrines)

But, you do bring up an excellent post

Salty

 

[Dustin]

HP: How about this for starters. Scripture nowhere represents the unborn or infants as sinners, so it would be at best a non-essential to believe that they are. Would it not be enough for all to agree to accept the Scriptural and reasonable position that we all can agree on, that ‘all that come to the age of accountability, sin and become guilty before God?’

No, because there is nothing Scriptural or reasonable about that position.



Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Dustin: No, because there is nothing Scriptural or reasonable about that position.

HP: There should be no reason to wonder why the church is so divided.

Here, I believe, is a voice in accordance to reason, a voice that God indeed used mightily in the furtherance of His gospel. Would to God more would listen to his advice. Here is Wesley on this issue.

Wesley on Original sin. “Our moral faculties have been distorted by the Fall, but `nothing is sin, strictly speaking, but a voluntary transgression of the known will of God'.

Wesley on Liberty of Thought ““The Scripture does not, that I remember, anywhere say, in express words, that the sin of Adam is imputed to his children; or, that the sins of believers are imputed to Christ; or, that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers: but the true meaning of these expressions is sufficiently found in several places of Scripture.” “Yet since these express words and phrases, , of the imputation of Adam’s sin to us, of our sins to Christ, and of Christ’s righteousness to us, are not plainly written in Scripture we should not impose it on every Christian, to use these very expressions. Let every one take his liberty, either of confining himself to strictly Scriptural language, or manifesting his sense of these plain Scriptural doctrines, in words and phrases of his own.”

 

[Darron Steele]

IN ESSENTIALS UNITY, IN NON-ESSENTIALS LIBERTY, IN ALL THINGS CHARITY

Exactly what is non-essential?
I know there has to be a few of you who are reading this use this phrase time to time. So I want to know from you, what is non-essential?

When I hear this, I think of things in the Bible that are non-essential(not important). My thinking is obviously wrong. From what I can gather from the Scriptures.

• Jesus said "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4).
• Paul preached the whole council of God. "For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God." Acts 20:27
• Joshua 1:8 "This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have success.

I didn't see any proverb saying we have non-essentials in the Word of God. So please explain what you think.
Thanks

There are no `Non-essentials' in Scripture. There are non-essentials in our opinions.

Essentials: one must believe about Jesus Christ all things Scripture says about Him, such as that He is Lord, He is Savior, He is Christ, He is God come in flesh, and Son of God, as well as the normal good deeds and godly lives Scripture teaches we should have and that we all expect of Christians.

Non-essentials: most of the things we argue about, such as how certain passages of Scripture should be interpreted, whether this-or-that religious tenet or practice is okay with Scripture, etc..

I know. I see it coming. :tonofbricks:

 

[Darron Steele]

[ Accidental Double Post -- sorry ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Scripture nowhere represents the unborn or infants as sinners

Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.
Ephesians 2:3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth.

Clearly, the Bible does teach that the unborn and infants are sinners. To say otherwise is to deny the Word of God.

It is interesting how some are so accusative of Calvinists redefinign the word "all," but when it comes to things like "All have sinned," it suddenly only means some.

The answer to the question requires a more precise question. Essential to what? Essential to have salvation? Essential to be obedient? Essential to be right? Essential to be a member of a church? Essential to have Christianity?

Without specifying what you mean, it is hard to answer.

 

[Eric B]

I would say all of the above, because so many people rise up and denounce others for those reasons. (fundamentalists denounce new-evangelicals as disobedient in several areas, but still saved, so do most sabbathkeepers with Sunday Christians, and Calvinists and Arminians back and forth' all the while using language that would imply their belief is essential for all the above. Catholics claim their authority is necessary for true christianity, but some still debate on salvation outside their church; Campbellists and other sects claim you must agree with them on all points to be saved, etc.) All this is under the banner of "all the Word of God is essential"; so then every single minute issue people come up with becomes a test of truth, obedience, rightness, and by logical extension, the Church/Christianity.
As HP pointed out, division is impossible to eliminate, then.

 

[TomVols]

"The things that are clear are imporant. The things that are important are clear"

(author unknown)

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pastor Larry: Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

HP: It is the clear misuse of a text to try to establish proof of original sin from it. First, David was a Jew and the Jews had no place in their theology for Augustinian original sin. It was simply unheard of and not believed. Secondly, the passage says absolutely noting about constitutional depravity, but speaks to the sin of his mother in the act of conception. The Jews rightfully considered David illegitimate for several reasons. He obviously had two half sisters. Nothing more than the following can fairly be assumed from the text. David was simply pointing to the very point of his conception as involving sin. Sin was involved in his life, and found its evil influences having an effect upon his own guilt before God. It is as though David was saying in this chapter, acts of sin have been involved in making me what I have become or influenced me in a negative way even from my conception. The act of conception itself was an act of sin on my mothers part. There is nothing about being conceived in sin that mandates or necessitates any such notion as the idea of original sin birthed into the church via the ‘father of original sin,’ Augustine.

PL: Ephesians 2:3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

HP: It is a false notion to insert the presupposition into the word ‘nature’ every time it is used, i.e., inducing the Augustian notion of original sin. Certainly our nature, our natural propensities to sin do influence greatly our decisions to sin, but nothing, strictly speaking, is sin other than the voluntary transgression of a known commandment of God. Sin is at its heart blameworthy. Nothing can be blameworthy that is not a product of ones own volition. To think otherwise is to make God out to be the creator of all evil.

PL: Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth.

HP: Read the whole chapter Pastor. The Psalmist is making an illustration between the righteous and the wicked, between ‘two’ groups of individuals. The Psalmist made no 'universal' doctrinal statement in clear opposition to the beliefs of the Jews. The Psalmist was simply saying that those that are wicked seem to begin their wickedness ‘in a sense,’ ‘even from the womb’ or from first light of moral agency.

The Psalmist clearly understood that the righteous were not included in such an assessment as the chapter clearly illustrates. To try and get this passage to walk on our four legs in support of the Augustinian notion of OS is simply unfounded and as such false.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Please tell me you are kidding, HP. That has to be the worst attempt at interaction that I have seen in a long time. Surely it is not serious.

It is the clear misuse of a text to try to establish proof of original sin from it. First, David was a Jew and the Jews had no place in their theology for Augustinian original sin.

Sure they did. Augustine didn't invent original sin. It goes way back to just outside of Eden.

Secondly, the passage says absolutely noting about constitutional depravity, but speaks to the sin of his mother in the act of conception.

No it doesn't. The context is about David's sinfulness, not his mother's. There is no biblical evidence that David was conceived from his mother's sinful act. That is contrary to the passage.

HP: It is a false notion to insert the presupposition into the word ‘nature’ every time it is used, i.e., inducing the Augustian notion of original sin. Certainly our nature, our natural propensities to sin do influence greatly our decisions to sin, but nothing, strictly speaking, is sin other than the voluntary transgression of a known commandment of God. Sin is at its heart blameworthy. Nothing can be blameworthy that is not a product of ones own volition. To think otherwise is to make God out to be the creator of all evil.

God does not share this opinion of yours. Sin is not just that which is voluntary. It is that which does not conform to God's character and holiness.

The Psalmist was simply saying that those that are wicked seem to begin their wickedness ‘in a sense,’ ‘even from the womb’ or from first light of moral agency.

One is hardpressed to fine "in a sense" in the Hebrew, or "from the first light of moral agency." It would have been easy enough to say that, and he doesn't say that.

We have now seen three times where you willfully slaughter the text of Scripture to keep from beleiving it. You could at least be an Arminian.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

PL: Sure they did. Augustine didn't invent original sin. It goes way back to just outside of Eden.

HP: Augustine introduced into the Church the heathen and false notion that sin lied in the constitution of the flesh as opposed to the will. Read scholarly works such as Alfred Edersheims work, “The Life and Times of Jesus Christ the Messiah.” Read the ‘History of Christian Ethics’ volume 1 by George Wolfgang Forell, or ‘The History of Christian Doctrines’ by Louis Berkhof. If you believe that the idea of Augustine as being the ‘father of the doctrine of original sin’ is novel with me, you are in gross error. Read the scholars in the know, forget that I have said it. I am only repeating that which is commonly known and understood by many reputable scholars.
Quote:
HP: Secondly, the passage says absolutely noting about constitutional depravity, but speaks to the sin of his mother in the act of conception.

PL: No it doesn't. The context is about David's sinfulness, not his mother's. There is no biblical evidence that David was conceived from his mother's sinful act. That is contrary to the passage.

HP: There is indeed clear evidence that David was indeed conceived in sin. I have posted it before, and I may need to again.

You are correct that the overall context is indeed David’s sin, but where you are in error is that David did not believe, nor did any other Jew, in original sin nor was his statement of the sin of his mothers mentioned in support of such a foreign idea in the mind of the Jews and as such was completely absent from any of their writings. You will find the origin of the notion of original sin introduced into the church by Augustine as he mixed the heathen Manichaeans notion that taught ‘an evil nature, unchangeable and coeternal with god” as cited in ‘Earlier writings’ by Augustine LCC, 6:102.

PL: God does not share this opinion of yours. Sin is not just that which is voluntary. It is that which does not conform to God's character and holiness.

HP: Oh yes He does, and there is no sin outside of voluntary disobedience according to Scripture. Where there is no law, sin is not imputed.
Certainly sin does not conform to God’s character and holiness for sin is selfishness, and God is love. How does that prove your contention that sin can be involuntary? “To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” Joh 9:41” Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.”

PL: You could at least be an Arminian.

HP: What do you think they believe on the issue of original sin that the Calvinist doesn’t? The Arminian’s have obviously bought into the same error as have the Calvinists in this area, and that is to their shame.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Augustine introduced into the Church the heathen and false notion that sin lied in the constitution of the flesh as opposed to the will.

Perhaps, but that’s not original sin. Original sin is that all men are charged with the sin of Adam.

Secondly, the passage says absolutely noting about constitutional depravity, but speaks to the sin of his mother in the act of conception.

How in the world does that fit into the context? It doesn’t. It just isn’t true. It refers to his birth and conception. Was David’s mother in sin at the time of birth as well? Of course not. Your interpretation is flawed on its face.

here is indeed clear evidence that David was indeed conceived in sin. I have posted it before, and I may need to again.

You should probably not embarrass yourself any further. Twould be better at this point to simply bow out, or issue a mea culpa.

where you are in error is that David did not believe, nor did any other Jew, in original sin

Clearly this passage contradicts you, doesn’t it.

HP: Oh yes He does, and there is no sin outside of voluntary disobedience according to Scripture.

Yes there is.

HP: What do you think they believe on the issue of original sin that the Calvinist doesn’t? The Arminian’s have obviously bought into the same error as have the Calvinists in this area, and that is to their shame.

The Arminians believe in original sin and total depravity, and are a good deal more biblical than your pelagianism.

This is why the church is in such a mess today. We have no doctrinal sensibility. People decide what they want to believe and then use the Scripture as you have to support it.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

PL: (speaking concerning original sin) It goes way back to just outside of Eden.

HP: Show the list the evidence from inside or outside the garden that establishes original sin. If we are born in sin as original sin insinuates, all after the fall would have been devoid of the ability to do anything other than sin. That is simply not established by Scripture. As a matter of fact, god clearly states that such is not the case. Take God’s words to Cain for instance. Ge 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.”

Where do we hear God telling Cain that he could not have helped but sin or that he was born in sin, and as such unable to do righteously? No, God tells Cain that he is well able and should not allow sin to rule over him, but rather that he should rule over sin. God tells him that all he has to do to be accepted by God is to do what is right and good.

Show us the passages in or outside the garden that establish the notion that all are born in sin, unable to do right, and such estranged from God and that from birth. Show us where Scripture states or implies, even 'in a sense,' that Adam's sin is imputed to us and that we are guilty of Adams sin or that our guilt is due to Adam's sin.

 

[BobRyan]

IN ESSENTIALS UNITY, IN NON-ESSENTIALS LIBERTY, IN ALL THINGS CHARITY

Exactly what is non-essential?

A follow on question - What does "in essentials unity" mean if whatever you select as "essentials has differences in POV"?

For Example --

JW's believe that God is the Father -- the Creator of all.

They also Believe that the Bible is the Word of God and is the standard for all doctrine and practice.

They believe in believers Baptism and free will.

They also believe in a literal 7 day creation week.

The believe Jesus Christ died for our sins and I think they believe in a substitutionary atoning payment for sin model with Christ.

---------------

How much of that do you consider "essential"?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Show us the passages in or outside the garden that establish the notion that all are born in sin, unable to do right, and such estranged from God and that from birth. Show us where Scripture states or implies, even 'in a sense,' that Adam's sin is imputed to us and that we are guilty of Adams sin or that our guilt is due to Adam's sin.

HP -

#1. WHAT IS THE FALLEN SINFUL NATURE using your model? Where did it come from? How/when do we get it?

#2. What change takes place "in our nature" at conversion using your model?

#3. What is the difference in the "nature" of the person pre-conversion vs post conversion?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Quote:
HP: Secondly, the passage says absolutely noting about constitutional depravity, but speaks to the sin of his mother in the act of conception.

PL: How in the world does that fit into the context? It doesn’t. It just isn’t true. It refers to his birth and conception. Was David’s mother in sin at the time of birth as well? Of course not. Your interpretation is flawed on its face.

HP: David’s mother was clearly in the act of sin when she conceived David, just as he stated. “In sin did my mother conceive me.” Is that so hard to comprehend? If one is conceived as a result of an act of fornication or adultery, is that not being conceived in sin? Why is that so hard to comprehend? You don’t suppose you might have a presupposition to find support for do you?

PL: You should probably not embarrass yourself any further. Twould be better at this point to simply bow out, or issue a mea culpa.

HP: I offer the following in response. This was written by William P. Murrey Jr., entitled a “Perspective on Psalm 51:5”


David had two half-sisters (Zeruiah, Abigail).....:
1CHR 2:13-16 13 “And Jesse begat his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third, 14 Nethaneel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, 15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh: 16 Whose sisters were Zeruiah, and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah; Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three. 17 And Abigail bare Amasa: and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmeelite.”

....and the father of David's half-sisters was not Jesse, but Nahash:

2Sam 17:25 “And Absalom made Amasa captain of the host instead of Joab: which Amasa was a man's son, whose name was Ithra an Israelite, that went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab's mother.”

Nahash, the father of Zeruiah and Abigal, David's half-sisters, was an Ammonite king:

1Sam 11:1 “Then Nahash the Ammonite came up, and encamped against Jabeshgilead: and all the men of Jabesh said unto Nahash, Make a covenant with us, and we will serve thee.”

1Sam 12:12 “And when ye saw that Nahash the king of the children of Ammon came against you, ye said unto me, Nay; but a king shall reign over us: when the LORD your God was your king.”

David's father was Jesse, not Nahash. Zeruiah and Abigal were David's half-sisters through his mother's previous marriage to Nahash. This would also help explain why Nahash showed kindness to David, perhaps out of respect for David's mother, Nahash’s former wife and the mother of two of Nahash's children.

2Sam 10:2 “Then said David, I will shew kindness unto Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father shewed kindness unto me. And David sent to comfort him by the hand of his servants for his father. And David's servants came into the land of the children of Ammon.”

David's mother was most likely the second wife of Jesse, the first wife being the mother of David's half-brothers. Jesse’s first wife's standing before the 'righteousness of the law', (her not having been married to, or the concubine of, a heathen king, as was David’s mother), would have been superior to that of David's mother, and explains why David's half-brothers, Jesse's other sons, would have felt they were superior to David, and why he would be accused of being prideful, for thinking he was as good as them....

1Sam 17:28-30 28 “And Eliab his eldest brother heard when he spake unto the men; and Eliab's anger was kindled against David, and he said, Why camest thou down hither? and with whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know thy pride, and the naughtiness of thine heart; for thou art come down that thou mightest see the battle. 29 And David said, What have I now done? Is there not a cause? 30 And he turned from him toward another, and spake after the same manner: and the people answered him again after the former manner.”

...and why David was not considered, by his father Jesse, as `true' a son as his half-brothers. Samuel had called Jesse and his sons, and thus expected `all' his sons, to the sacrifice (1Sam 16:5,11). Jesse, having been told to bring `his sons' by a prophet of the Lord everyone feared (1Sam 16:4), was confident he had obeyed the prophet, even knowing he did not bring David....

1Sam 16:11 “And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither.”

....which would be consistent with God's sometimes choosing that which men esteemed as worthless (the `least') to be the greatest: (Gideon- Jud 6:15; King Saul- 1Sam 9:21; Jesus- Mt 2:6, Lk 9:48)

David's mother was apparently a Jewish woman, because `no Ammonite shall enter the congregation of the Lord to the 10th generation’ (Deu 23:3), and yet in PS 86:16 and PS 116:16, David refers to himself as "the son of thy handmaid", which would seem to testify to his mother's relationship with the Lord. David's mother was, in the eyes of Jewish law, considered `defiled' by her previous relationship to an Ammonite.

Nu 25:1,2; De 7:3,4; 1ki 11:2-4, Ezr 9:2; Ne 13:23,25; 2Co 6:14-17

 

[BobRyan]

There was a list posted on the board that looked something like this

"you can not be saved if you believe anything in the following list..." and then the person gave some "list"

some things either IN the list or later ADDED to the list includeded things like this --

1. Allowing women to speak in church vs insisting that they be silent.
2. Allow spiritual gifts as seen in 1Cor 14 in church after the 2nd century A.D.
3. Belief in the 10 Commandments including an un-edited 4th commandment.
4. various interpretations for the 2300 day prophecy in Dan 8


But we could add --

5. Rejection of the Trinity
6. Rejection of the Genesis as a "trustworthy account" of God lierally Creating all life on earth. God creating sinless perfect Adam and God as divine direct creator of all life on earth.
7. Rejecting Gospel foundation "God so love the WORLD that He gave"
8. Belief in hell as a kind of 1000 year purgatory leading to heaven.
9 Belief that God deliberately creates our children to enjoy roasting them in eternal hell - as his purpose in creating them.
10. Belief in praying to - the dead
11 belief in worshipping bread as if it were God
12 justifying the torture and killing of fellow Christians -- calling the heretics.
13. Saying that all other Christian churches are "not really Christian":

Basically - we have discussed a LOT of things where "differences" exist

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: #1. WHAT IS THE FALLEN SINFUL NATURE using your model? Where did it come from? How/when do we get it?

HP: Our fallen sinful nature is the product of the choices, and the subsequent formed habits, we have developed as we yielded our wills in accordance to the natural depraved propensities and influences we are born with, and the sinful influences around us.

BR: #2. What change takes place "in our nature" at conversion using your model?

HP: The change takes place in the heart and will of man when man is freed from the bondage of past failures by faith in the atoning work of Christ, and by faith accepts forgiveness for sins that are past. At that point we willingly place our faith in the promise of God to aide us in making right choices, believing what He has promised when he says that “there is no temptation taken you but such as is common to man, who will with the temptation make a way of escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” As we yield our wills in allegiance to God’s promise of aide, the enemy of our souls and our selfish will with all the force of past habits and warped propensities is defeated in that we recognize that with the Lord’s promised influences we are well able to do that which God commands.

BR: #3. What is the difference in the "nature" of the person pre-conversion vs post conversion?

HP: Pre- conversion we are willingly yielding our wills in accordance to selfish desires and propensities. Subsequent to or post conversion we should be willingly yielding our wills in conformity to God’s known will, relying on God’s proffered help and strength to act in accordance to love towards God and our fellowman. In salvation God, through faith, frees us from the bondage of our sinful natures, formed by the willing of our wills to selfishness, wiping out the guilt and punishment rightfully incurred. As we are freed from the guilt and penalty of past sins, we by faith are enabled to willingly pursue righteousness, joy and peace. We are given a new nature, a clean slate, free from the guilt of past sins.