Unity of faith: Non-Negotiables & Non-Essentials?

[Guest shiloh357]

So there's no mistakes in Bible translations??? Try the KJV with Acts 12:4 with the translation to "Easter", which in the Greek NT is actually the word for 'passover'.

 

 

That's not an inerrancy issue.  Inerrancy simply refers to the historical claims of Scripture.   Inerrancy simply means that if the Bible says it happened, it happened.

 

There are over 150,000 "variants" or discrepancies in the Greek NT but none of them affect doctrinal matter or essential truths. 

 

The infallibility of the Bible concerns the Bible's authority and accuracy in areas of doctrinal matter, such as what is found in the Epistles.  The problem with pascha being translated as Easter is one of those issues that isn't really an inerrancy or infallibility issue. 

 

There is a difference between actual errors when it comes to historical errors vs. copyist errors.  Copyist errors are to be expected as humans do make errors and those do not affect the inerrancy or infallibility of the Scriptures.

 

And you are correct, the issue of inerrancy only applies to the original manuscripts penned by the authors and does not extend to copies.

[Guest]

 

Essential:

God the Father

God (Jesus the Word) created heaven and earth

Jesus Christ His only Son conceive by Holy Spirit

Virgin birth

Suffered for our sin

Died and was buried descended to the dead

Rose the 3rd day

Sits on the right hand of the Father in heaven

Will come to judge the living and the dead

The Holy Spirit

Communion of Saint

Forgiveness of sins

Resurrection of our bodies

Basically ...the Apostles Creed says it all. ONE JESUS the Son of the LIVING GOD, son of David who will sit on David's throne forever.

NON NEGOTIABLE.

Nonessential:

Anything else. Although deviation from the inerrancy of the Bible would call into question the veracity of the entire Bible.

Nonessential?? Without that we are not Christians. That is the bedrock of our faith. Christ is the sure foundation without Him and His work we are like those most miserable. We have learned to love because of God who is pure love otherwise we have no love or Jesus in us.

 

Without what? I'm saying that belief in the inerrancy of Scripture can be considered essential by most as doubt in the veracity of any part of the Word would call into question the veracity of all of the Scriptures. Others might think it is no big deal.

[Guest]

 

Essential:

...

Nonessential:

Anything else. Although deviation from the inerrancy of the Bible would call into question the veracity of the entire Bible.

 

That's not the way it works.

 

I know that there are mistakes in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, especially in the last three volumes, but that doesn't make me doubt the whole work. If someone rejects inerrancy, they can still have faith in most of the Bible. And really, does that matter? I would consider someone a Christian who believes in the gospel Paul repeats in 1 Corinthians 15 but who, at the same time, doesn't believe Onan was killed because he spilled his seed.

 

I'm afraid that if your view is correct, then someone who is seeking the truth but has doubts about the absolute truth of parts of the Bible ought reject the whole Bible.

 

(Highlight mine) No, what I'm saying is, for example, if you don't believe in the Creation as GOD describes it, how can you be SURE about Christ being the only way to salvation. Or if you don't believe in the virgin birth of Christ, how can you be sure about the ability of Christ to be sinless and able to pay the price for ALL our sins? Or even to have risen from the grave to conquer death? Not that they "ought" but that they could as the door would have been opened.

[Pamelasv]

A can of worms...as they say.

 

As for me, "God knows those who are His."    

[jdxp]

 

 

Essential:

...

Nonessential:

Anything else. Although deviation from the inerrancy of the Bible would call into question the veracity of the entire Bible.

 

That's not the way it works.

 

I know that there are mistakes in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, especially in the last three volumes, but that doesn't make me doubt the whole work. If someone rejects inerrancy, they can still have faith in most of the Bible. And really, does that matter? I would consider someone a Christian who believes in the gospel Paul repeats in 1 Corinthians 15 but who, at the same time, doesn't believe Onan was killed because he spilled his seed.

 

I'm afraid that if your view is correct, then someone who is seeking the truth but has doubts about the absolute truth of parts of the Bible ought reject the whole Bible.

 

(Highlight mine) No, what I'm saying is, for example, if you don't believe in the Creation as GOD describes it, how can you be SURE about Christ being the only way to salvation. Or if you don't believe in the virgin birth of Christ, how can you be sure about the ability of Christ to be sinless and able to pay the price for ALL our sins? Or even to have risen from the grave to conquer death? Not that they "ought" but that they could as the door would have been opened.

 

One answer: the historical argument for the resurrection employed by Habermas and Craig, and perhaps others.

 

A short(ish) answer: faith.

If Abraham knew with absolute certainty that Isaac was going to be spared, then his faith was meaningless and it should not have been counted to him as righteousness. And if Moses knew with absolute certainty that he, with God's help, would be able to lead an army of slaves out of bondage, his faith would have been meaningless too. And thus I would argue that one who doubts parts of the Bible but believes in God and Jesus Christ is more faithful than one who in his heart knows with absolute certainty that the Bible is true and inerrant.

 

When these kinds of threads pop up -- along with YEC threads -- I ask myself which is more important, that nine sinners submit to God's will and put their faith in Jesus Christ despite having personal misgivings or that one sinner do the same and believe the Bible with absolute certainty? The righteous shall live by faith.

 

When Jesus Christ issued the Great Commission, what did he say? "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations...teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." To make Biblical inerrancy something like a prerequisite to faith (I do not accuse you or others of this) does a disservice to God.

 

In any case, there is rejoicing in Heaven when a sinner repents. And that is what matters.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

Essential:

...

Nonessential:

Anything else. Although deviation from the inerrancy of the Bible would call into question the veracity of the entire Bible.

 

That's not the way it works.

 

I know that there are mistakes in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, especially in the last three volumes, but that doesn't make me doubt the whole work. If someone rejects inerrancy, they can still have faith in most of the Bible. And really, does that matter? I would consider someone a Christian who believes in the gospel Paul repeats in 1 Corinthians 15 but who, at the same time, doesn't believe Onan was killed because he spilled his seed.

 

I'm afraid that if your view is correct, then someone who is seeking the truth but has doubts about the absolute truth of parts of the Bible ought reject the whole Bible.

 

(Highlight mine) No, what I'm saying is, for example, if you don't believe in the Creation as GOD describes it, how can you be SURE about Christ being the only way to salvation. Or if you don't believe in the virgin birth of Christ, how can you be sure about the ability of Christ to be sinless and able to pay the price for ALL our sins? Or even to have risen from the grave to conquer death? Not that they "ought" but that they could as the door would have been opened.

 

One answer: the historical argument for the resurrection employed by Habermas and Craig, and perhaps others.

 

Yes, but those arguments are based on the factual accuracy of the historical claims of Scripture which you appear to be claiming are not necessary to accept.

 

 

A short(ish) answer: faith.

 

Faith in what??   Faith in a book that you really don't think you can trust to be 100% correct??  How do you put faith in that?

 

If Abraham knew with absolute certainty that Isaac was going to be spared, then his faith was meaningless and it should not have been counted to him as righteousness. And if Moses knew with absolute certainty that he, with God's help, would be able to lead an army of slaves out of bondage, his faith would have been meaningless too.

 

But biblical faith isn't like that.  Abraham DID know that Isaac would not die, or at least he knew that Isaac if he died would be resurrected.   In Genesis, Abraham told his servants, "wait here and I and the boy will be back."  He knew he was coming back down the mountain with Isaac.  In the book of Hebrews it says that by faith Abraham knew that God was able to raise Isaac from the dead.   Abraham had a blood covenant with God which meant that God had to keep His promise to Abraham and create a nation out of Isaac, meaning that Isaac had to survive one way or the other.   There is nothing in the Bible that says that Moses lacked any faith.  In fact, the book of Hebrews includes Moses in the great "hall of faith."   Moses faith was quite strong and while the people grumbled and doubted, the Bible never says that Moses doubted that God could deliver them.

 

And thus I would argue that one who doubts parts of the Bible but believes in God and Jesus Christ is more faithful than one who in his heart knows with absolute certainty that the Bible is true and inerrant.

 

 

But if they can't trust what they are reading, on basis would they believe???  If I don't believe that the Bible can be trusted to be true and without error, then on what basis would I accept the teachings of Jesus as true?  On what basis would be able place any faith in the notion that what the Bible says that Jesus said is true?  How would I know that Jesus actually said what the Bible says He said???    That's your problem;  you have a skewed notion of what real faith is.  Your notion of faith isn't faith at all.  Nowhere in the Bible is there anything like a faith that doubts or a faith that in uncertain.   The very definition of faith in Hebrews 11 is rooted in assurance and what does the writer in Hebrews do to support that?   He begins to recount all of the Old Testament saints who had a full assurance of faith in God and His word.  They didn't doubt. 

 

Faith IS knowing for certain, because true biblical rests on the faithfulness of God.  The reason the Bible gives us so much history and tells us so many stories is that these stories form a basis for faith.  They tell us about God's interaction in human history and that interaction is held up as the basis for our understanding of God's faithfulness.  If those stories are not true, if they can be brushed aside as fables or mythology or allegories that never actually happened, then there is no record of God's faithfulness to His people. 

 

Even the life and ministry of Jesus is rooted in the Old Testament and the types and shadows and the lives and ministries of prophets.  But if those things are myths, if they never happened, then the Bible is fraudulent for pointing back to those stories as factual.  Even Jesus himself, refers to the Old Testament stories as factual events that really did happen.   If Jesus is lying, then He is not God and is not fit to be our Savior.   If Jesus didn't know they were not true, then He is not God and is unfit to be our Savior as He claimed to be God.

 

There really is no way around it.  The inerrancy of the Bible is not negotiable for the true follower of Christ.

 

When these kinds of threads pop up -- along with YEC threads -- I ask myself which is more important, that nine sinners submit to God's will and put their faith in Jesus Christ despite having personal misgivings or that one sinner do the same and believe the Bible with absolute certainty? The righteous shall live by faith.

 

 

This is an attempt to muddy the waters on the issue.  No one has to have a perfect understanding of the Bible in order to get saved.  But there is no reason a true Christian would doubt any part of God's word as true, either.   When people, who claim to be Christian,s start arguing that the Bible doesn't really have to be true, doesn't have to be accepted as inerrant, then there is a problem.  When we get saved, we need to be taught the essentials of the faith, and inerrancy is one of those.

 

 

When Jesus Christ issued the Great Commission, what did he say? "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations...teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." To make Biblical inerrancy something like a prerequisite to faith (I do not accuse you or others of this) does a disservice to God.

 

It's not a matter of making it a prerequisite to faith.  The question is whether or not it is an essential doctrine of the Christian faith.  One may not even know what inerrancy means when they first get saved, but that has no bearing on whether or not it is an essential doctrine of the faith.  Once a person gets saved, should they be taught that the Bible can be trusted 100%

[Littlelambseativy]

You cannot separate the Bible from God,nor can you separate God from Faith. You take it all or you leave it all. One choice...which do you choose ? I choose to accept it all.

[GoldenEagle]

FresnoJoe posted this a while back... I think it's a really good summary of what I believe are non-negotiable:

 

There are five fundamentals of the faith which are essential for Christianity, and upon which we agree:

1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8-9).
2. The Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27).
3. The Blood Atonement (Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:12-14).
4. The Bodily Resurrection (Luke 24:36-46; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 15:14-15).
5. The inerrancy of the scriptures themselves (Psalms 12:6-7; Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20).

Can we agree to these 5 points?
God bless,

GE

 

[Marilyn C]

I recently heard a good explanation of having unity of faith with other Believers. The idea was to differentiate non-negotiable and non-essential in viewing doctrines.

 

A non-negotiable would be God is the creator of all the universe. A non-essential would be where people land on the whole Armenianism and Calvinism spectrum of the free will vs predestination argument.

 

For example I can be leaning towards the whole Armenian view and still have fellowship with someone who is more leaning toward a Calvinistic ideology. We still agree on the non-negotiable that God is the creator of all the universe so we are united in the same faith. 

(Not saying I lean either way for reference this is just an example).

 

What else can we agree upon to be non-negotiable to the Christian faith? What can we agree are non-essentials?

God bless,

GE

Hi GoldenEagle,

 

My view is that the Holy Spirit is leading us into the `Unity of faith,` of what we believe about Christ`s character & His purposes. He has led us a long way & there is just some clarity of truth to reveal, I believe, before the Body of Christ comes to maturity in Him. Sometimes people can be trying to make us come to the unity of faith by making the criteria a bottom line, whereas all the details of God`s word line up with His purposes & thus fit into the whole fabric of God`s word.

 

 The process to the unity of faith by the Holy Spirit is ongoing, I believe & not something we can try & agree on as a final arriving just yet. We obviously agree on what has been revealed already, as people have written about & I believe once the purposes of God are clearly revealed then what we think can be `negotiable` things actually fit into what Christ has purposed.

 

Marilyn.

[Willa]

I have a few of them my self. 

 

A Christian is a saint not a sinner.

A Christian is sinless because:

1) they have repented of their sin

2) they believe in Jesus work

A Christian believes in the water, blood, Spirit

Then you have the typical stuff

 

Jesus is Goò

Resurrected

etc

Once again, no one has to believe in water to be saved.