Essentials and non-essentials: Observations
While the survey is still tallying, I thought I would make a few observation. This is not quit what I expected. But, to be truthful, I did not know what to expect with such diversity. (Note: please read What are the Essentials for Christianity: A Test of Unity and Diversity)
Observations:
- Everyone believes that a person must believe in God to be a Christian.
- Everyone believes that a person must believe in the death, burial, and resurrection to be saved.
- Everyone believes that one must believe in personal sin, while imputed sin was a somewhat negotiable doctrine for orthodoxy.
- Everyone believes that one has to be a monotheist to be a Christian.
- Very few, if any, believe that one has to have a perfect canon to be saved (although most put this in the category of orthodoxy). I found this very interesting.
- Belief in Christ’s deity was almost universal receiving all 1’s except for two 2’s (which were very hesitant 2’s).
- There was quit a bit of division about the necessity of belief in sola fide (the necessity of belief in salvation by faith alone). A slight majority of people did not believe that a firm adherence to this doctrine was necessary for salvation. We even had a Roman Catholic say that while it was not necessary to believe in sola fide for salvation, it was necessary for orthodoxy!
- Almost no one was ready to damn anyone for a belief in the doctrine of Soul Sleep.
- Most of you believe that the doctrine of sola Scriptura is necessary to believe for orthodoxy (2), although many also marked it as important, but not essential (3). There was even a couple of you who believed that if you did not believe in sola Scriptura that you were damned to hell! Ouch . . . All Catholics: you had better pray a couple HMs that they are wrong
- I did not notice anyone who put the Rapture or belief about the age of the earth above a 3. This is good.
- Belief in the doctrine of inerrancy was pretty stable at either a 2 or 3, although there were quit a few who did not believe in it at all. For those of you who did not believe in the doctrine, I have to warn you . . . there was a surprising number of people (4 to be exact) who believe that it is absolutely necessary to believe in inerrancy to be saved! Maybe you should just take the Pascal’s Wager on this one just to be safe
. That goes for the Roman Catholic also who is doubly damned since he disagrees with the Church about this issue (damnation #1) and disagrees with those on this blog who believe that it is damning (damnation #2). Ouch again.
When all is said and done, I am encouraged about the unity that was shown here. This is especially interesting considering how many diverse traditions are represented. I am also encouraged that most of you did not go hog wild with 1s (although there were a couple!). This ability to discern between essentials and non-essentials displays your much theological maturity. While it may be common for people to think with such careful judgment here, such an attitude of humility is a rare find in the church today.
Thanks for taking the test.
Next I will begin to prepare for my public flogging as I take the test and expose my heresies.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!- A Test of Essentials and Non-Essentials
- Where I stand on all things part 1
- An Emerging Understanding of “Orthodox” – Part 3: The Maturing of Orthodoxy
- An Emerging Understanding of “Orthodox” – Part 4: Are Catholics Orthodox?
- Theological Word of the Day: Perseverance of the Saints
Print This Post
Loading ...
Valdimir on 09 Oct 2008 at 11:27 am #
Where do you take the test? Links don’t work.
Vladimir
Glenn Leatherman on 09 Oct 2008 at 12:23 pm #
The original post – “What are the Essentials for Christianity: A Test of Unity and Diversity” cannot be found. I was looking for this the other day to help someone develop a taxonomy of beliefs, but could find it. I think it would be helpful if you reposted it.
Eclectic Christian on 09 Oct 2008 at 12:53 pm #
Ditto 1 & 2.
Ranger on 09 Oct 2008 at 7:20 pm #
Those holding that inerrancy is essential for salvation (or even for orthodoxy) should read Dan Wallace’s discussions on the topic…or consider the things George Ladd wrote about it. Or consider the many, godly and conservative scholars who hold to a limited inerrancy (which I feel most laity would not consider inerrancy since the definitions are so nuanced and do allow for certain errors). I even think most people when they think of inerrancy don’t mean the “reasoned inerrancy” that Michael holds. To be honest, they probably don’t even mean something as strict as the Chicago Statement (which does allow for certain apparent errors, such as numerical data, etc.). As such, although I personally would say I hold to a reasoned or limited inerrancy, I think the term can be somewhat misleading and therefore I don’t use it in discussions about my beliefs unless asked directly.
I know we’ve talked about it on this board before, but here is a link to Dan’s excellent discussion of the topic: https://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4200
GoldCityDance on 09 Oct 2008 at 7:54 pm #
Michael,
Can you tell us the sample size when you’re done tallying the results? If the size is small, the differences may not be statistically significant after all. Thanks.
Wonders for Oyarsa on 09 Oct 2008 at 10:29 pm #
Michael,
I broke the trend by having no 1’s at all… Perhaps if the language were softened, a 1 being something that without which one is in serious danger of damnation (rather than assurance of), I could track with it.
Talacker on 10 Oct 2008 at 7:32 am #
I first time I shrugged it off as a typo. The second time, a mere nuisance. Thereafter, it became grating.
Quit = stop doing something
Quite = distinguishingly
Sorry. I’m a pedant.
britphil on 10 Oct 2008 at 9:16 am #
Ranger
Thanks for your comments. As a struggler with the complete inerrancy /infallibility doctrines towards Scripture they are of great help. I think I may be with you on the reasoned/limited inerrancy score, although I may be of a disposition which leans towards a more limited view of inerrancy. I shall have a read of Dan’s post because I think he is a really good guy who writes some great stuff. I was also glad to hear that you intimated that it may not be essenitial for orthodoxy, which makes me feel a whole lot better and whole less more heretical! Like yourself I tend hardly to use the term at all, as I think it can be both misleading and confusing.
Wonders for Oyasa.
I I had noticed, and was fascinated to see, reading through all the threads that you were completely devoid of number ones! Does this mean you have a phobia of the singular! I was pretty horrified when I read mine back that I had half a dozen ones, and was beginning to worry that I may be far more of a conservative funadmentalist than I ever dreamt or feared, only to comfort myself by discovering that in the that I had as many, if not more 4,5 and 6s, including in the area of inerrency/infallibilty, which would get me quickly booted out of most fundamentalist circles!
Dudley Davis on 15 Apr 2009 at 9:51 pm #
Michael said “Most of you believe that the doctrine of sola Scriptura is necessary to believe for orthodoxy (2), although many also marked it as important, but not essential (3). There was even a couple of you who believed that if you did not believe in sola Scriptura that you were damned to hell! Ouch . . . All Catholics: you had better pray a couple HMs that they are wrong.”
I am an ex roman catholic and now a Reformed Presbyterian Protestant. I converted because by Gods grace my eyes were opened. However I do not believe that those roman catholics who do not accept sola scriptura will go to hell.
I can tell you that I now I totally believe that the Bible alone is the infallible authority in all matters of faith and practice and that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. I also now believe Predestination, then, is the biblical teaching that God predestines certain events and people to accomplish what He so desires.
Anyone standing for the sovereignty of God as well as the sufficiency of Scripture cannot do other than to renounce the roman pope and roman Catholicism. You can not profess a belief in the authority of the Bible alone as the only authority if you continue to submit to the pope and the roman catholic position of tradition and scripture and sometimes papist teachings which contradict the truths set out in the Gospel of Christ.
Rom. 8:29, “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren;
3. Rom. 8:30, “and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”
I also now believe that I was granted Gods special grace because I sought to have my eyes opened to the truth.
Eph. 1:11, “also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.”
I also now believe that people choose God only because He has first predestined them. I also have come to believe that predestination and/or election does not effect our salvation. Each person must respond to Gods action and grace.
1 Cor. 2:7, “but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God predestined before the ages to our glory.”
The simple truth about Roman Catholicism it denies the Protestant belief in Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. These two rallying points of the great Protestant Reformation are being reversed by men who cannot see the point. I believe we are still in the battle today. I cannot help but hope that the Lord would bring conviction and courage to those who are His own as He did for me.
Dudley