Eight Issues that Do NOT Make or Break Christianity

I’m going to guess that #9 or #10 was soteriology (broadly speaking), since William Barclay was neither an Arminian nor a Calvinist (or was both at the same time rather), but a Christian universalist. {g}

So, are you some kind of heretic? Don’t you know that we are to be separated by these kind of inconsequential matters?

Truly, and excellent post that couldn’t be more on target. Great work!

GREAT POST! That is why we need to know the mind of Post-Modernism Skeptics and figure out how to reach those souls for Jesus Christ.

Thank you for this Michael!

Since the resurrection is a sine qua non, none of these 8 actually deal with Christology. So do you think there is anything “incidental” and non-essential about Christology? The sinlessness of Jesus? The virgin birth?

If inerrancy and inspiration of scripture are non-essential, then what if the accounts in Matthew & Luke about Jesus’ birth are not reliable? What if, for example, Jesus was the natural-born, oldest son of Mary & Joseph (who were married)? There’s a good chance that the readers of Mark and John (not to mention Paul himself in Gal 4:4) assumed that to be the case, at least outside of Matthew & Luke, the rest of the NT makes no hint of Jesus having a virgin birth or it being essential to the faith. And even within those 2 gospels, it’s only mentioned in the opening two chapters and never hinted at again in the 20+ chapters that make up the rest of each of those books.

So just curious. Do you think belief in the virgin birth, something that is important to christology is necessary for salvation?

Thanks, Michael. For myself, I wonder if we should make a distinction between those that don’t know about the virgin birth (such as the readers of Mark), and those that do but deny it. Seems to be two different things.

The point of my question was to feel out where do we draw the line between essentials & non-essentials. I know you blogged about that subject a while back and vaguely remember a few of the points you made and issues you raised. But to me, the 8 things you mentioned here seemed to be no-brainers (or at least they should be even though they’re not to some) since I think the line marking the essentials is somewhere in the area of Christology since the core of the gospel really is about Christ. But where exactly is that line? And what does it include or not include?

Thanks again.

Yeah, you are right. I write about this issue all the time.

These are no brainers, huh? Well, I wish they were. Unfortunately, there are many who don’t see these as non-salvific.

You could be right about the distinction between those who are ignorant and those who deny.

Thank you, CMP.
I think the one I had most contention with was number 5. Namely because the character of Christians seem intimately connected with the work of Christ. As you quoted Paul, without the resurrection, Christians are “yet in their sins”, but they shouldn’t be by the death of Christ. (edit: by in their sins I mean without the power of sin broken)… Though perhaps this point has the most attestation in scripture.
I’ll give this whole post and the principles more thought as I’ve been wondering about some of these things recently… Though I am interested, what are the two that you did not list?

Michael,
It seems to me that you need to flesh out what you mean by “Christianity.” Are you asking what it necessary for someone to believe, and still experience salvation? Is yes, then salvation from what? Maybe you say salvation by the death and resurrection of Jesus. How do we know that salvation is possible only through the work of Jesus? It seems to me that if the Bible is not inspired (a word from God,) then the Christianity we are left with would not be the Christianity of the Bible, which claims to be based on an inspired testimony. This testimony includes interpretations that are connected with the historical events (forgiveness, atonement, etc.). I would say that if there is no authoritative testimony (inspiration), then we have no classic Christianity. This does not necessarily mean the testimony is innerant.

In reading your 8 issues, I think you are making excuses to allow for false beliefs to be accepted by the church and christians.

You are also very general, enough so, as to hide your own beliefs while appearing to be Christian. No real Christian can accept evolution and denying the global flood does affect Christianity.

I think you fail to think through the ramifications of your statements.

I didn’t want to use the term “no-brainers” in my initial comment because I didn’t want it to sound condescending towards your blog post, and I hope it didn’t come across that way. I simply meant that for the reasons you laid out, there should not be much debate at all for these 8 regarding salvation, even though they are to some, and that’s why it has to be said (or blogged). But defining the essentials in Christology is a much, much tougher question to ask. Keep up the great blogging.

It seems to me you’re saying that many of these aren’t “essential” because, with or without them, the historical fact of God existing and Jesus rising from the dead are still reality.

Well then what is essential? Could someone not believe in Jesus? Because after all, just because they don’t believe that or if a church doesn’t preach it, He still really existed right?

It seems to me that the “essentials” of Christianity aren’t those issues on which the faith *actually* stands or falls. Because then, like you said, the only *truly* essential thing is the historical resurrection of Jesus (and by implication, the expiation and propitiation of sin).

Rather, the essentials of Christianity are those things that mark out and delineate our faith from others. If you believe in evolution, the big bang, and believe the Bible is neither inerrant nor inspired, you may call yourself a Christian all day long, but in reality you’re something else, because so much of what we believe rests on those things.

If you take away those foundations, the house that we call Christianity is incredibly unstable and can collapse into something else. (I mean “you” in a general sense, not you personally).

Very interested in your last 2. I promise to lock up all matches and lighters before reading 🙂

Dear Mr. Sith and Dr. Tee,
As one who sees some legitimacy in what Michael is saying, I wanted to offer a few thoughts.

Mr. Sith, I’m not sure that Christianity hinges that much on the issues as you suggest. Once when I was questioning what “the Word of God” was, I saw that if I had written the same things Matthew or Paul had, it would not be the Word of God while what Paul and Matthew wrote would be. This made me wonder if our idea of the “word of God” should be something more. If I were to write the things Paul wrote, it could still be a testimony to the truth. I think in part that is Michael’s point. The “inspiration” isn’t what makes the things true. The matters are true without the “inspiration”. Now, we hold that the Spirit did lead the authors just as the Holy Spirit spoke through David; but Michael’s point seems to be the one I made before, the statement can be true without the Spirit’s inspiration.

Dr. Tee,
Even until yesterday, I was largely ignorant of Evolution’s claims until yesterday. As a result, I saw clearly how some such as Bruce Waltke said it was necessary to acknowledge the claims to a degree. Obviously neither Waltke or Michael would say the exclusion of God were permissible. I also acknowledge there are difficulties with the Young Earth theory and the Global Flood in light of the Biblical Witness itself, so that I’ve held different positions because of the Biblical Witness more than anything else. Michael’s point is that the range of the flood does not invalidate what Jesus did, nor does the age of the earth.

The number 3 (Inerrancy of Scripture) and 6 (The inspiration of Scripture) are key aspects to true faith. I’m very sure that if these are denied then it is really difficult to be a true Christian. If one has this view of scripture, then that person is going to buy into a lot of lies in his entire life and if he/she is not corrected, then there is enough reason to doubt their faith. And if you look closely, all the other points which you have mentioned seem irrelevant to you because you are okay with points 3 and 6. You can see how your view of inerrancy has watered down your own views on other important topics. I mean, there is no reason to doubt the flood unless you believe that the scripture is in error. You don’t believe in theory of evolution unless the truth of scripture matters. Why should we believe what men say more than what God reveals in his Word? Remember that Jesus’s defense against the Devil was only the scripture (even though he himself was God). That itself should make us understand the importance of believing in the power of scripture and that belief is not going to come to anyone who thinks that the scripture can be in error!

Joseph Smith wrote the book of Mormon because he believed that the scriptures were with error. So if you believe that the innerancy of scripture is inconsequential, you will also have to deny that fact that so many heretics have been formed just because they believed that. The Mormon church with its entire beliefs exist today because they can argue that the scripture is not fully true. So when Christians reduce the inerrancy of scripture as to being non important we are going the way of the Downgrade controversy and secularism which is very dangerous!

Austin-

“the essentials of Christianity are those things that mark out and delineate our faith from others. If you believe in evolution, the big bang, and believe the Bible is neither inerrant nor inspired, you may call yourself a Christian all day long, but in reality you’re something else, because so much of what we believe rests on those things.”

Those things mark out our faith from others? I thought who Jesus was, what He did, how we love one another, etc…” was what marked out our faith. Our faith does not rest on our view of evolution, the Big Bang, etc… Now, those things may cause us to tweak or adjust some of our theology, but not regarding the essentials. A person can believe in evolution, and still hold the essentials of the faith, and still have a marked out faith.

Likewise, you seem to be combining how our faith is expressed with the essentials (such as the resurrection).

Label me an old school ignorant idiot. While a person coming to Christ will not encounter all of these issues it does seem that your attempt to capitulate to the academic culture lowers the bar for people in the faith. Inspiration and inerrancy when properly understood have huge consequences if not true. Does a believer need to be able to answer every detail in these doctrines? Not at all. But to communicate to the world that Christians are jettisoning (my take) large parts of the faith will not endear them to Jesus. I appreciate this ministry but posts like this leave me wondering about the direction of Credo House.

Don

This issue has to do with what creates the sin quo non (“without which not”) of Christianity.

For example, if Balam’s donkey never spoke, Christianity would still be true. If Christ never told the parable of the minas, Christianity would still be true. If 1 Cor were never written, Christianity would still be true. If John made a mistake in how many angels were at the tomb, Christianity would still be true. If God used evolution to create the world, Christianity would still be true. If God never inspired any Scripture, Christianity would still be true. If Christ did not rise from the grave, Christianity would not be true. If Christ did not become incarnate, Christianity would not be true.

It is an issue of apologetics, not necessarily determining who is saved and who is not.

I think many of you may be associating this too closely with the post on essentials and non-essentials. Think of it this way: when you are trying to convince an atheist about Christianity, what should we focus on? THE issue that makes or breaks the faith.

Michael,
Again, it is difficult to know what you are talking about when you use the word “Christianity.” What do you mean when you use the word Christianity?

Asker,

I knew that. I did not take it as condescending. I wish they were all no-brainers.

I’m keeping the final two close to my heart, reserving the right to post again on this subject.

Michael,
I might focus on the evidence for the historical Jesus and the evidence for the resurrection but this is not the gospel. The gospel (1 Cor. 15) also includes interpretation of the events. These interpretations (forgiveness of sins, eternal life, etc.) are not negotiable and they depend on the Bible’s claim to be God’s interpretation of the events. A person who met the historical Jesus and was present at his resurrection would not be necessarily be a Christian. It seems to me that he (she) must believe the divine interpretation of these events.

This may be an interesting and useful discussion to have amongst ourselves, but in reality if I were talking with an atheist I would never be willing to compromise on these things.

However we may equivocate on what “essential” means, as mentioned in this very post atheists don’t need an excuse to reject Christ. So to compromise on the pillars of the belief (whether or not they’re “essential”) in the hopes that it will be more likely to convince an atheist is disingenuous and destructive to our own cause.

If I were an atheist and a Christian friend tried to convince me that what he believes is true yet doesn’t hold fast to the hallmarks of the faith, I would question what he believes and why he believes it. He would appear to me to be confused and ignorant and certainly not an effective apologist for the faith.

Michael, You raise some good questions about what are the essential beliefs for a person to be considered a Christian. I just don’t think that a person can be a Christian without holding to some form of inspiration because the gospel message includes some truths that are not discernible from history alone.

Let me try to further clarify (as I fear I may be getting in trouble for the wrong thing!):

If Christ had not died as a substitution for our sins to satiate the wrath of the Father, Christianity would not be true. (Which, as a consequence, is what makes the resurrection so central—it evidences the Father’s satisfaction).

On a completely different issue from this post, if someone holds to a ransom to Satan theory rattan than a vicarious substitution theory (like Augustine), they are wrong but they can still be saved.

The second has to do with the necessary epistemology of salvation, the first has to do with the necessary ontology of the Gospel.

See the difference?

Micheal,
I think I understand the issue, but still find it hard to see how a person can be a Christian (which you admit includes certain truths known only through the Bible) and still deny that the Bible is in any sense inspired. I know that you are not claiming that your list is of no importance. You are asking what is necessary for a person claim saving faith. Again, I am saying that believing certain events happened will not do it. We must also submit to the inspired interpretation of these events.

So the emperor is wearing no clothes? An interesting notion. However, naked or not, he is still the emperor.

Everything you say flows from #6, or at least in the excellent way you have presented the issue there.

We Christians are notorious for majoring on minor points. For example we fought a pointless biological evolution battle (and some are still tilting at that windmill), but allowed the Trojan horse of Social Darwinism to enter the gates of church and society with hardly any notice.

I see what you’re trying to do. You’re dealing with what really *is* regardless of what we may *think* about what really *is.* I understand it and appreciate it.

Like you mentioned in a previous post, a guy who had once believed in inerrancy realized he no longer did and walked away from the faith because of it. Your point in that post, and here too if I’m not mistaken, is that in *reality* he didn’t *have* to walk away from the faith because he could no longer believe in inerrancy. The person and work of Christ didn’t change one iota because his views on a particular doctrine changed. I get all that.

However, when the rubber hits the road, at least in this particular case, the perception is often as important as the reality. The fact remains that he did, in fact, actually walk away from the faith because one of the key tenets of Christianity was compromised.

So I see what your point is, but at the same time, it seems like at best a null and moot argument (because yes, that which is objectively true will never change- got it), and at worst a very very dangerous one because it can lead the weaker brothers into a crisis of faith (if what I’ve always believed to be true may not be true, then what is?).

Bill,

“You are asking what is necessary for a person claim saving faith.”

No I am not. I am claiming that there are issues that make or break the Gospel. What you are talking about is the previous post.

Michael, you mentioned

“For example, if Balam’s donkey never spoke, Christianity would still be true. If Christ never told the parable of the minas, Christianity would still be true. If 1 Cor were never written, Christianity would still be true. If John made a mistake in how many angels were at the tomb, Christianity would still be true. If God used evolution to create the world, Christianity would still be true. If God never inspired any Scripture, Christianity would still be true. If Christ did not rise from the grave, Christianity would not be true. If Christ did not become incarnate, Christianity would not be true.”

But Michael, God put Balam’s donkey in the Bible, God put the parables in the bible, we as Christians believe that the entire Bible is God’s spoken word. If you mention that if the only thing important was Christ’s resurrection, and you are ready to say that all these other incidents in the Bible don’t really matter, you are putting more fuel into people who think that parts of the Bible like Leviticus or the OT where God punishes entire cities are really not important. You are giving an excuse for people to skip parts of the Bible and read only parts which they think are important or makes sense. That, in essence is asking people to read only the parts of the Bible which they think are relevant. That means that a person who is committing adultery can skip the part which convicts him of his sin and only concentrate on the part which says that Christ saves from sin. When unbelievers ask questions about God’s judgement, one can be a skeptic because he feels he does not need to believe God as a judge! Can’t you see the danger of doing that? You are giving an excuse to people who want to believe in the Bible selectively and already most Christians are doing that. Is there anyone who is not going to go the way of secularism and stand up for the entire truth of God?? Don’t you see that even the first sin was about doubting the whole word…

How can a man become a Christian without the word of God, it is impossible!! So if faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of God, then faith comes by the word of God and doubting the word, cannot lead to faith!!

Lots of people became Christians before the NT. before the Apostles wrote it, people were traveling all over telling people about who Christ is and what he did without the Bible. Rome was evangelized by non-apostles who just went and told people about the Gospel.

Other ways that God COULD have done it: angels, only unwritten tradition, donkeys, or direct encounters.

I thought the discussion was about what creates “the bedrock of our (and your) faith.” I stand by my point that without some belief in inspiration (God has given us a divine interpretation of the Christ event) we have no faith. If you are merely claiming that the resurrection is the grounding for the gospel proclamation (not the doctrines of creation, inspiration, etc.), then you are saying nothing controversial.

Michael,
How do you know they became Christians? You are assuming some standard by which you distinguish Christian from non-christian. For the early Christians (prior to the NT) this standard was the apostolic gospel (oral). This oral tradition was passed on and written (NT). No persons experience outweighed the revelation given through the apostles. At least this was the view of those who set out to refute the Gnostics (Irenaeus), who argued on the basis of experience alone.

CMP –

I agree with you. I think that the most essential truth to Christianity is Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, because if that has not happened then our faith is indeed worthless. And none of these things you mentioned in this post affects that at all since they are all essentially theological constructs. What distinguishes Christianity from other religions is the fact that it is not rooted in theological or philosophical constructs, but in a historical event! It seems that this is often obscured by our theology and we lose sight of the Gospel [didn’t we accuse those heinous Roman Catholics of doing the same thing… :)].

If Inspiration or Inerrancy were somehow proven to be false I think that it would certainly mean the death of Protestantism because we would have to locate infallibility somewhere else, but Christianity would still stand. While it certainly wouldn’t mean that what the Bible says is false it would mean that we couldn’t trust it to be infallible. We would certainly have to rework our theology, but not our faith.

Our faith is (or should be) in Christ and his atoning work, not in our theology, epistemology, etc. Theology is not the faith, Christ’s redemptive work is the faith. Theology can fail and the faith will still go on, but if Christ’s work failed then the faith cannot go on.

Scripture existed before the New Testament and was understood to be the inspired, authoritative, inerrant word of God (2 Tim 3:16 [referring to the OT]). They absolutely used Scripture as a tool of evangelism (Acts 17:11, Luke 1:2) because after all, it’s these OT scriptures that point to Christ.

@SRQTom you commented “Christ’s redemptive work is the faith”.

How did you come to know about Christ’s redemptive work? And if you don’t believe in inerrancy / inspiration, why should you even believe in Christ’s redemptive work? Because it can be a story conjured up by some literary genius much greater than Shakespeare?

The basis of knowing Christ’s redemptive work is the scripture alone! And denying the truth of the scriptures is denying the work of Christ, because it is the scriptures that reveal Christ’s work and God’s plan of salvation!

SRQTom,

Exactly!!

Except, I don’t think it would mean the death of Protestantism as we don’t necessarily have to have infallibility. Or we could just all become charismatic!

Michael, you are a brave man. I admire that. I also agree with you on each point.

It seems some readers have trouble with the idea that some beliefs or doctrines are more important than others, but Paul himself specifically lists that which is of first importance, which, by definition, means other things are less important.

I can’t help but think that if it were not for the insistance on inerrancy, Ehrman or Darwin might have remained in the faith. It’s only because they had been taught that there cannot be a single discrepancy that they were so disillusioned when they thought they found one.

The only historical account of Christ rising from the grave is in the Bible. If we deny that it is inspired and thus inerrant, then what authoritative evidence do we have for the resurrection? Why would we pick the Gospels out and say “well the bits about Jesus rising from the grave are true but other things…well it doesn’t matter.”

Excellent post, and a much needed reminder to Christians about what is really important in our faith!

Related to the issue of unity, I think that it is generally easier to convince people that we don’t need to agree about some of these points which are ultimately very academic and unrelated to how we live our lives on a daily basis, such as the age of the earth and whether there was a global flood. It’s much harder, but, in my view, just as important (maybe more important) that we be willing to accept that people on both sides of other divisive issues can still be Christians.

The example I have in mind is homosexuality. There are good arguments that Christianity says modern homosexual relationships are sinful. There are also good arguments that Christianity says modern homosexual relationships are not sinful. Most people weigh in very strongly on one side or the other, and we’re each pretty convinced we’re right and the other side is wrong, with scriptural backing, etc. There are many Christians who say “If you are gay, you cannot be a Christian, and you will go to hell.” Assuming for sake of argument that homosexuality is unambiguously sinful, that still leaves us with the fact that everyone in the church is a sinner will continue to sin until the day we day. Christ didn’t say that the unforgivable sin was homosexuality, he said it was not believing in him. But many Christians will alienate gay people, stigmatize and discriminate against them, be unwelcoming toward them, sometimes stand in picket lines telling them how much God hates them. This should never be the case! We have to accept that somebody can be wrong and still be a Christian, and we also have to acknowledge that *our side* might be wrong (we can explain why we think we’re right, where we’re coming from, why we believe what we believe, etc., but we have to agree we aren’t perfect). What really matters is Christ! The rest is all details.

The Christ +, folks can certainly be saved, too.

But then those who must add something to the finished work of Christ on the Cross (such as Popes, historic episcopacy, inerrant Bibles, good works, feelings of being saved, etc.)…really aren’t free. Almost, maybe…but not quite there.

I agree Dave. Even as a Calvinist, I agree. We need to take responsibility for the things we put in italics.

Carrie, why would the Gospels have to be inspired and/or inerrant to be true?

@Paul T:
Let’s imagine that the only scripture we have is Luke’s gospel, and let’s say it was not a result of inspiration, but did reflect accurate investigation, and was correct regarding the events of Jesus’ life, would the Christian faith be valid?

Here goes my controversial statement, the proclamation that Jesus was raised from the dead (as a purely historical event) is not the gospel (See 1 Cor. 15).
“the gospel I preached” (vs.1),” Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures” (vs.3), that he that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (vs. 4). . .”

The event of the resurrection always required interpretation such as; Christ died for our sins, God accepted his offering on our behalf, etc. How do we know these things? We believe that God has told us through his divine spokesmen. Even an angel’s testimony can not dispute the testimony of the an apostle (Gal. 1).

Michael,
Why would the gospels have to be inspired? The answer is that they make claims about God’s interpretation of salvation history. “The word became flesh and dwelt among us,” Christ died for our sins” and such. If they are true, then they would have to be inspired because they make truth claims about God’s actions that go beyond historical events. I find it hard to believe that a person living in first century Jewish culture (with the OT background) would imagine that you could have documents that claimed to represent God’s point of view that were true but not inspired. I would also argue that this is not what happened. This is why we have a canon which the early Christians sought to distinguish from good books that had helpful christian writings and the inspired books.

Bill Smith wrote:

I find it hard to believe that a person living in first century Jewish culture (with the OT background) would imagine that you could have documents that claimed to represent God’s point of view that were true but not inspired.

Based on that statement, can you explain what category the book of Enoch, quoted by Jude, falls into? According to your statement, if Jude thought it was true enough to quote, he also thought it was inspired. If inspired, why is it not in our canon?