# Essentials vs non-essentials of the faith



## Andres

I am working on putting together a list of essential beliefs of the Christian faith for a class. I have compiled a brief list of beliefs that I believe are essential for one to ascribe to in order to be recognized as a Christian. Or another way to look at it might be, what are those beliefs that are essential for a church to hold to that we could still fellowship with them. Or is there a difference for individuals vs a church? 

Here is what I have so far: 

Trinity – one God in three persons
Christ born of Virgin Mary
Christ’s sinless life 
Crucified, died, buried, and resurrected on 3rd day
Vicarious and atoning death for sins of His people
Ascended to heaven where He is seated at the right hand of the Father
Christ coming again to judge living and dead
Salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone
Infallibility of scripture 
Recognition of protestant canon – 66 books of old and new testaments 

Also I am sure that there has to be something included in regards to the catholic, or universal church and communion with the saints but I am not sure how to word it exactly. 

I based this list primarily on the Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, but surely I am missing out on something or perhaps I have included something that is a non-essential? I would appreciate any suggestions and/or clarity for my list. Thank you.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I would definitely say that the Creeds are the place to start. The key gospel doctrines (i.e. Justification by faith alone) of the Reformation are also vital, and I see you have that. The Canons of Dort are basically as critical a statement of necessary belief as the Creeds of the early church. Although, we should be always as charitable as we possibly can be, hesitating at length to question the genuineness of a person's faith, no matter how wrong they are.

But, denying one of the clear, cardinal truths as the early church did so diligently and faithfully defend and codify them is a clear mark of obstinacy to the Spirit of God.


----------



## jambo

I think the church is an essential in that the church should be defined as a bride, a body etc (as a opposed to a building, or even a group that calls itself church) which includes the union of all true believers in Christ despite national, ethical, cultural, social barriers.

Our church constitution has the following pattern. Although baptist as reflected in the baptism part but the wording could be adapted to suit a Presbyterian format:



> The local church, the body of Christ, made up from those drawn from every tribe, language, people and nation throughout history who are added to it by the work of the Holy Spirit and the exercise of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the scriptural expression of the church in the world as the local company of baptised believers gathered under the headship of Christ for worship, fellowship, instruction and evangelism, in separation from all systems of belief that do not adhere to the Scriptures and are unfaithful to the gospel of salvation by grace alone,
> the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s supper: baptism being the immersion of believers on profession of their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and a symbol of their identification with Him in His death, burial and resurrection;
> the Lord’s supper being a remembrance of Christ until He comes and a renewal of commitment to Him;
> the offices of elder and deacon;
> the gifts of evangelist and pastor-teacher;
> the priesthood of all believers and their unity in the Body of Christ;
> the separation of church and state.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Nothing which God has commanded is unessential for us to keep. Not every difference or negligence is, however, a barrier to Christian fellowship.


----------



## Andres

Willem van Oranje said:


> Nothing which God has commanded is unessential for us to keep. Not every difference or negligence is, however, a barrier to Christian fellowship.


 
Riley, I want to understand you correctly - does this mean that you take issue with my wording, essential vs nonessential, or is there actually something that I have listed that you are taking issue with?


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Andres said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing which God has commanded is unessential for us to keep. Not every difference or negligence is, however, a barrier to Christian fellowship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riley, I want to understand you correctly - does this mean that you take issue with my wording, essential vs nonessential, or is there actually something that I have listed that you are taking issue with?
Click to expand...

 
Andres, I don't take issue with your list. It could be useful at times to find areas of agreement with other believers for the purpose of prayer and fellowship, even if they are not fully Reformed, or for other purposes. I just wouldn't say that those doctrines on which we disagree are non-essential.


----------



## Jack K

I like that you gravitate toward doctrine of salvation issues. But with views of God being all over the map today, I would also go heavier on some doctrine of God issues. God is personal. He is one. He is spirit. He is perfect. He is the creator. He is all-powerful, all-knowing and everywhere present. He acts with conscious purpose. He is self-existant, unchanging, good, holy and true. It seems to me that denial of any of these would be unacceptable.

And while we're at it, the idea that God is knowable and there is objective and findable truth might have to go in there.


----------



## Andres

Willem van Oranje said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing which God has commanded is unessential for us to keep. Not every difference or negligence is, however, a barrier to Christian fellowship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riley, I want to understand you correctly - does this mean that you take issue with my wording, essential vs nonessential, or is there actually something that I have listed that you are taking issue with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Andres, I don't take issue with your list. It could be useful at times to find areas of agreement with other believers for the purpose of prayer and fellowship, even if they are not fully Reformed, or for other purposes. I just wouldn't say that those doctrines on which we disagree are non-essential.
Click to expand...

 
thank you Riley. I understand what you are saying.


----------



## interalia

Evangelical Presbyterian Church > Essentials of Our Faith

The creeds are the foundational starting point, but I will be so bold as to offer this statement as a minimal distillation. No flaming, please.


----------



## jayce475

Just some things that I would personally consider essential.



Andres said:


> Infallibility of scripture


And the inerrancy of scriptures, that it contains no mistakes whatsoever right now, not just being it being generally trustworthy. This view also necessitates the preservation of the words of scriptures, and not just the general ideas behind them.



Andres said:


> Vicarious and atoning death for sins of His people


How about original sin? This necessitates a historical understanding of Gen 2 and 3.



Andres said:


> Trinity – one God in three persons


And that Christ is fully God and fully Man, just to tighten it.


----------



## raekwon

For a church, this is great. For individuals, I don't know. While I obviously agree with you that all of these things are true, I won't be surprised if we end up in Heaven with some folks who didn't necessarily believe (on this earth) in Scripture's infallibility or even that salvation comes through Christ alone.

*EDIT TO ADD: In case it's not clear, I am not wavering on the necessity of personal union with Christ for salvation here. One MUST personally believe on Christ alone in order to be reconciled to God.*


----------



## Edward

Andres said:


> essential for one to ascribe to in order to be recognized as a Christian.
> 
> Or another way to look at it might be, what are those beliefs that are essential for a church to hold to that we could still fellowship with them.



I would see these as two different things.

---------- Post added at 07:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:48 PM ----------




interalia said:


> No flaming, please.


----------



## jwithnell

Mr. Buchanan is absolutely correct: stick to one of the creeds. They express the essentials of the faith in a way that has been preserved for almost the entire history of Christianity.


----------



## jayce475

raekwon said:


> For a church, this is great. For individuals, I don't know. While I obviously agree with you that all of these things are true, I won't be surprised if we end up in Heaven with some folks who didn't necessarily believe (on this earth) in Scripture's infallibility or even that salvation comes through Christ alone.



WCF Chapter 14 II. By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of god himself speaking therein; and acteth differently, upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principle acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.

Assuming I'm not misreading you seriously, what you are saying is contra-confessional.

---------- Post added at 11:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:26 AM ----------




jwithnell said:


> Mr. Buchanan is absolutely correct: stick to one of the creeds. They express the essentials of the faith in a way that has been preserved for almost the entire history of Christianity.



I agree. Andres, why not stick to the creeds and confessions. They are quite clear on what is essential to salvation. Then consider what heresies/errors are enough grounds for separation but do not pervert the gospel, what aren't serious enough to warrant separation and what constitute another gospel. There won't be much consensus on the PB though as to what doctrines fall under which of the 3 categories.


----------



## raekwon

I think you might be misreading me in one place or another, or else misreading the Confession. (But I could be wrong.) I don't know that that means that saving faith assuredly brings one to believe in Scripture's infallibility. And one can rest upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life and, at the same time not necessarily believe that everyone else needs to.

But like I said -- maybe I'm wrong.

*EDIT TO ADD: In case it's not clear, I am not wavering on the necessity of personal union with Christ for salvation here. One MUST personally believe on Christ alone in order to be reconciled to God.*


----------



## reformedminister

I like your list. Some of them could probably be combined. Here is a list that I use, which might prove to be helpful:

1. The Bible is the Word of God.
2. There is only one God who reveals Himself to us in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
3. Jesus Christ is the Son of God: his virgin birth, sinless life, miracles, atonement for the sins of all who believe through his death and resurrection.
4. Salvation by grace through faith.
5. The Second Coming of Jesus Christ.
6. The bodily resurrection of the dead.
7. The Judgment of the living and the dead.


----------



## SolaScriptura

There are no essentials and non-essentials. To say something is non-essential is to imply that one can have a wrong position on the subject and still be "ok." 

You either believe the Westminster Standards or you don't. Which line, proposition, statement, etc., contained in them is not important enough that we insist one have a correct position?


----------



## reformedminister

SolaScriptura said:


> There are no essentials and non-essentials. To say something is non-essential is to imply that one can have a wrong position on the subject and still be "ok."
> 
> You either believe the Westminster Standards or you don't. Which line, proposition, statement, etc., contained in them is not important enough that we insist one have a correct position?


 
To elevate the Westminister Standards above other confessions is to elevate it to a position equal to the Bible. This is a dangerous position. I hope I am misunderstanding your statement. Maybe you were just kidding. If so, then forgive my inquiry. However, if what you are saying is true, then you are saying all who do not hold to the Westminister Standards are not saved and going to hell. I have found this type of thinking within the reformed circle and find it quite disturbing. I was saved long before I embraced Reformed Theology!


----------



## Andres

SolaScriptura said:


> There are no essentials and non-essentials. To say something is non-essential is to imply that one can have a wrong position on the subject and still be "ok."
> 
> You either believe the Westminster Standards or you don't. Which line, proposition, statement, etc., contained in them is not important enough that we insist one have a correct position?


 
So you _only _fellowship with Confessional Presbyterians? What about our Baptist brothers on this board? You don't consider them brothers in the faith?


----------



## P.F.

There may be a difference between a doctrine being "essential" and a doctrine being something that would divide fellowship. Prudence might dictate that we draw certain lines, but the Scriptures do not provide us with a list of "essential" doctrines. There are certain truths that must be believed, namely that God exists and that God rewards those who seek after him diligently. But exactly what details of God's nature are "essential to the faith," is probably a judgment best left for God. It's our duty to believe everything that the Bible teaches and to submit to the subordinate authorities in our lives (elders, husbands, parents).


----------



## baron

The main essential to me is: 
1 Cor:15:3-9 ESV

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

I tend to view all matters of Scripture as essential. I am probably in the minority, but I think one can argue the linkages from the end point all the way back to the beginning from the view of the wholeness of God's special revelation. Thus I see discussions of what is _essential_ as missing the point that _everything is ultimately essential_. 

AMR


----------



## cih1355

Instead of the essential vs. non-essential wording, maybe it would be better to say "that which is possible to deny and still be a Christian vs. that which is impossible to deny and still be a Christian."


----------



## Covenant Joel

Justin Taylor wrote an interesting post on this a little while back with some diagrams to illustrate his point:
Levels of Doctrine – Justin Taylor


----------



## Steve Curtis

As you are trying to craft something (I think) with regard to an individual's beliefs, instead of a distinction between essential and non-essential (_esse_ and _non esse_) perhaps there is a parallel with the distinction commonly made with regard to the church: _esse_ (being) and _bene esse_ (well-being).


----------



## jwithnell

I think the distinction being drawn here is between dogma and doctrine. The creeds express that which must be believed to be a Christian. Doctrine, while essential, may differ without affecting a person's standing in Christ. To deny that Jesus was "very God of very Gods, begotten, not made ..." makes you a non-believer. To believe an infant of believing parents should be baptized is a matter of doctrine. I might argue to the best of my abilities for infant baptism, but that doesn't deny the faith of someone who holds to credo-baptism.


----------



## jayce475

On Justin Taylor's blog, he quotes Michael Wittmer. I found this quote of Wittmer deeply disturbing. "The final category is important doctrines which genuine Christians may unfortunately misconstrue. I think that every Christian should believe that Scripture is God’s Word, know its story of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation, and know something about the nature of God, what it means to be human, and what Jesus is doing through his church. However, many people have been genuine Christians without knowing or believing these things (though their ignorance or disbelief in these facts significantly diminished their Christian faith)." raekwon had claimed earlier that one can be saved without putting his faith in Christ alone or believing the infallibility of the bible, now Wittmer had brought it even further by claiming that one who doesn't believe that the Bible is God's Word can be a child of God. The claim that a non-bible believing Christian can be a believing Christian is unbelievable. 

Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. 

2 Pet 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Immature converts who have yet to come to a full understanding of scriptures is one thing (and the bible's importance), but liberals who deny the infallibility of scriptures for their whole lives even after repeated exposure to the correct teachings are another thing altogether. Scriptures do not characterize such people as believers, and there is no basis for one to say "many people have been genuine Christians without knowing or believing these things". On a personal level, I will not accept Christian fellowship with one who claims that the bible is not infallible and inerrant. Ah well, maybe that's why people call us fundies.


----------



## Covenant Joel

jayce475 said:


> On Justin Taylor's blog, he quotes Michael Wittmer. I found this quote of Wittmer deeply disturbing. "The final category is important doctrines which genuine Christians may unfortunately misconstrue. I think that every Christian should believe that Scripture is God’s Word, know its story of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation, and know something about the nature of God, what it means to be human, and what Jesus is doing through his church. However, many people have been genuine Christians without knowing or believing these things (though their ignorance or disbelief in these facts significantly diminished their Christian faith)." raekwon had claimed earlier that one can be saved without putting his faith in Christ alone or believing the infallibility of the bible, now Wittmer had brought it even further by claiming that one who doesn't believe that the Bible is God's Word can be a child of God. The claim that a non-bible believing Christian can be a believing Christian is unbelievable.
> 
> Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
> 
> 2 Pet 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
> 
> Immature converts who have yet to come to a full understanding of scriptures is one thing (and the bible's importance), but liberals who deny the infallibility of scriptures for their whole lives even after repeated exposure to the correct teachings are another thing altogether. Scriptures do not characterize such people as believers, and there is no basis for one to say "many people have been genuine Christians without knowing or believing these things". On a personal level, I will not accept Christian fellowship with one who claims that the bible is not infallible and inerrant. Ah well, maybe that's why people call us fundies.


 
For the record, I wasn't necessarily citing any of that to say that it was 100% sound. But it's an attempt to wrestle with some of the issues brought up here. I need to think through them myself.


----------



## py3ak

reformedminister said:


> 2. There is only one God who reveals Himself to us in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.



The verb "reveals" makes that sound like something of a modalistic statement. The Three Persons, jointly and severally, are God.


----------



## reformedminister

py3ak said:


> reformedminister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. There is only one God who reveals Himself to us in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The verb "reveals" makes that sound like something of a modalistic statement. The Three Persons, jointly and severally, are God.
Click to expand...

 
There are numerous statements of faith that use the word "reveal". I know the Southern Baptist and United Methodists do. The United Methodist Church was a merger between the Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren (EUB) and their articles of faith combine the two. The EUB uses "reveal". There is nothing modalistic about the UMC and Southern Baptists.


----------



## py3ak

The EUB Confession does use "reveal"; that doesn't mean it's a good word choice. The Methodist Articles speak more circumspectly in saying, "And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."


----------



## Philip

> I am working on putting together a list of essential beliefs of the Christian faith for a class. I have compiled a brief list of beliefs that I believe are essential for one to ascribe to in order to be recognized as a Christian. Or another way to look at it might be, what are those beliefs that are essential for a church to hold to that we could still fellowship with them. Or is there a difference for individuals vs a church?



I would say just stick with the Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds and add the unique authority of Scripture (the term "infallibility" is treated with some nervousness by many of our brothers in British evangelical circles, at least according to my profs).


----------



## Leslie Koster

I learned a good deal just reading these posts.


----------



## Peairtach

*Philip*
_(the term "infallibility" is treated with some nervousness by many of our brothers in British evangelical circles, at least according to my profs). _

That would more likely be the word "inerrancy" among _some_ British evangelicals.


----------

