Essential vs Nonessential

[Jethro Bodine]

I believe why we do what we do always has precedence in the matter of being accountable to others stumbling or offense, i.e. if our motive for sharing what we believe is for truth's sake and not maliciousness, then there has been no wrong intended against another.

I'm talking about, for example, the hyper-grace doctrine that says you can continue to sin after you get saved and it will not affect your salvation. This is the gospel some people are leading others to Christ with. Of course, it is a gospel that, if followed as presented, can not save. They're not being malicious. They simply have a gospel that can not save but they are sure that they do.

"I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house, 21solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." (Acts 20:20-21 NASB bold mine)

If you tell potential converts that they can willfully continue in their sin after they receive Christ because 'OSAS', essentially removing the repentance part from the gospel, that makes the matter of OSAS an essential doctrine.

 

[netchaplain]

I'm talking about, for example, the hyper-grace doctrine that says you can continue to sin after you get saved and it will not affect your salvation.

If you tell potential converts that they can willfully continue in their sin after they receive Christ because 'OSAS', essentially removing the repentance part from the gospel, that makes the matter of OSAS an essential doctrine.

If we willfully sin it evinces the absence of rebirth. If we say we don't sin it evinces we are misunderstanding what Scripture reveals concerning the sin nature.

 

[Christ_empowered]

I don't think one's position on OSAS is essential, but I do see what Jethro Bodine is talking about. My dad goes to a OSAS mega-church loosely affiliated with the SBC. Problem is...he considers himself saved, Christian, etc., but his life hasn't yet shown evidence of it. The problem I have with 21st century American OSAS is that sometimes I think they don't adequately disciple people and I do think there are lots and lots of false converts, as another poster pointed out.

Personally, I'm on the fence about the OSAS issue. I mean, just because some (many?) churches in affluent, 21st century America abuse the concept doesn't mean it isn't Biblical. It could just be that many churches right now are more about building up the congregation, making $$$, building careers for the ministers, etc. than they are about doing The Lord's work. Heresy and false teachers have been a problem for 2,000 years, so this isn't really anything new, its just...its so widespread that its a bit disturbing.

But, yeah...false converts. I like Billy Graham, but how many of those who came to make a decision for The Lord do you think were/are genuinely saved? The number is higher than 0, so I'm proud of his work, but...still....I have concerns...

The OSAS controversy does seem to drive Christians apart, which is unfortunate. I think netchaplain is right to point out the basics that all Christians must agree on, as opposed to other concepts that may always be a matter of controversy and disagreement, but aren't essential to anyone's savlation. Unity is a good thing, as long as we're united in Truth.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If we willfully sin it evinces the absence of rebirth.

While willful sin is definitely a sign of unbelief, Hebrews 10 teaches us that those who do in fact presently believe, and have a better and lasting possession (salvation/eternal life), can shrink back into unbelief and be subject to the wrath of God that Jesus once protected them from:

"26For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.
32But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings, 33partly by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated. 34For you showed sympathy to the prisoners and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and a lasting one. 35Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward." (Hebrews 10:26-27, 32-35 NASB)

If we say we don't sin it evinces we are misunderstanding what Scripture reveals concerning the sin nature.

No, not the sin nature. Just the simple fact that we still have flesh bodies and it's deceitful desires. Through knowledge we learn to discern and overcome the deceitfulness of sin in our flesh, not overcome a sin nature that believers no longer have:

"17Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." (2 Corinthians 5:17 NASB).

Just by virtue of having the Holy Spirit in us we have a new mind set. Not necessarily our thoughts, just the fundamental desire and goal inside of us to live for and please God--a new nature. The person who still has the old mind set--the old nature--simply doesn't have the Spirit (Romans 8:9 NASB), and, therefore, does not belong to Christ.

 

[Jim Parker]

It has been well said that “there should be unity in all things essential, liberality in all things nonessential, and charity in all things!” The first is everyone believing the same doctrine concerning the receiving of faith (salvation).

With approximately 50,000 Protestant denominations, sects, independents, etc. there can be no hope of "everyone believing the same doctrine concerning the receiving of faith (salvation)."

 

[netchaplain]

. I think netchaplain is right to point out the basics that all Christians must agree on, as opposed to other concepts that may always be a matter of controversy and disagreement, but aren't essential to anyone's savlation. Unity is a good thing, as long as we're united in Truth.

Hi CE - I appreciate you mentioning the issue concerning the different usages of Scripture for different issues, which of course is more of what this OP is about than OSAS (okay to talk about though).

 

[netchaplain]

those who do in fact presently believe

"Receiving the knowledge of the truth": the word "receive" here does not intend believing the knowledge of the truth but merely learning of or knowing about the truth, otherwise there would not be a continuance in willful sinning (due to the rebirth, i.e. "new nature"). The passage also indicates that Christ's sacrifice does not include continuing a life of intentional sin, e.g. there is no sacrifices for sin other than the Lord's which covers sin, and His doesn't cover "presumptuous" sinning, i.e. Num 15:30.

"If we deliberately continue sinning after we have received knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice that will cover these sins." NLT https://www.blueletterbible.org/nlt/heb/10/26/s_1143026

No, not the sin nature. Just the simple fact that we still have flesh bodies and it's deceitful desires.

I prefer to conceive "sinful flesh" as sinful nature (sinful desire) to avoid contradicting the issue that the physical bodies of the saved are the temple of the Spirit of God (1Cor 6:19).

This is consistent with "sarx" Greek definition IV in this passage. In the NT the usage of "sarx" (flesh meaning sinful nature not the body) is nearly always in reference to the sinful nature of man. The OT usage of "flesh" is never used (that I'm aware of) in this sense, but rather flesh--physical body.

Definition IV: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G4561&t=KJV

Blessings!

 

[Jethro Bodine]

"Receiving the knowledge of the truth": the word "receive" here does not intend believing the knowledge of the truth but merely learning of or knowing about the truth, otherwise there would not be a continuance in willful sinning (due to the rebirth, i.e. "new nature").

The author is explaining this to believers:
"26For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES." (Hebrews 10:26-27 NASB)

If believers go on sinning willfully in contempt and unbelief there is no sacrifice for that sinning. All they have to look forward to is the Wrath of God that Jesus once saved them from when they believed.

In the NT the usage of "sarx" (flesh meaning sinful nature not the body) is nearly always in reference to the sinful nature of man.

Like here:
"9However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you." (Romans 8:9 NASB bold mine)

See it? "YOU ARE NOT IN THE FLESH".
By virtue of simply having the Holy Spirit we no longer have the old nature. We have a new nature.

 

[netchaplain]

The author is explaining this to believers:
"26For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES." (Hebrews 10:26-27 NASB)

Gill: After that we have received the knowledge of the truth; "either of Jesus Christ, or of the Scriptures, or of the Gospel, or of some particular doctrine, especially the principal one, salvation by Christ; of which there may be a notional knowledge, when there is no experimental knowledge; and which is received not into the heart, but into the head: and whereas the apostle speaks in the first person plural, we, this is used not so much with regard to himself, but others."

 

[OzSpen]

What's important is Jesus Christ. The rest... not so much.

Are you saying that teaching on God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are 'not so much' of importance? Just seeking clarification!

Many of the issues dealt with by Paul in the epistles relate to what is happening in the churches (often correction) and how to grow in grace. Are these not important?

Oz

 

[chessman]

Are you saying that teaching on God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are 'not so much' of importance? Just seeking clarification!

No.
I posted a passage that I think speaks to (agrees with) the issues addressed in the OP. netchaplain then asked me how the verse related to the OP. I clarified how it related.

As for your question, to me, the importance of God the The Holy Spirit is inherent (inseparable) to the teaching of God the Son and God the Father. The Holy Spirit teaches the truth of God the Father and God the Son, all the time. Every time! Were it not for God the Holy Spirit teaching you, me and the Bible authors about the Son, we would not be able to know Jesus Christ is God, the Son.

Many of the issues dealt with by Paul in the epistles relate to what is happening in the churches (often correction) and how to grow in grace. Are these not important?

They are important, sure. Just not so much so as who Jesus is.
Paul taught about lots of things (marraige, divorce, widows, deacons, hospitality, prisoners, dress, hair length, hats, children, jewelry, money, etc.). Yet, only Jesus Christ is the same forever.

Hebrews 13:8 (LEB) Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.​

 

[Jethro Bodine]

With approximately 50,000 Protestant denominations, sects, independents, etc. there can be no hope of "everyone believing the same doctrine concerning the receiving of faith (salvation)."

Hopefully, you know that I have loads of respect for you, so don't take this personally, but the mind numbing liturgy, the variation on justification, and the corrupt leadership is enough to keep me out of the church that is not Protestant.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Paul taught about lots of things (marraige, divorce, widows, deacons, hospitality, prisoners, dress, hair length, hats, children, jewelry, money, etc.).

If any of these is taught in such a way as to make a believer stumble and not keep believing to the very end, it becomes an essential doctrine.

9“If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.
6 ...whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble (and be cast into fiery hell), it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:9,6 NASB)

Only in OSAS is 'how to get saved' the only essential doctrine. Because only it believes that the believer can not stumble so as to go to the fiery hell. In that doctrine, the only thing that can keep a person out of heaven is not getting saved in the first place. That's why 'how to get saved' is the only essential doctrine for them. It says all believers can never stumble so as to go to hell.

 

[chessman]

Only in OSAS is 'how to get saved' the only essential doctrine.

Only antiOSAS teaches that verse (Matt 18:6) as a de-salvation snip , versus what it is teaching. Namely, Rank in the Kingdom.

Matthew 18:1 (LEB) At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” ...
​

to stumble (and be cast into fiery hell), it

​

The verse doesn't say; to stumble (and be cast into fiery Hell). You added that to the verse. Stumbling is stumbling. You can't just redefine it to mean being cast into fiery Hell. The stumbling blocks are men of the world, not the little children of God:

The ... You left out teaches us this:

Matthew 18:7 (LEB) “Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!​

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Only antiOSAS teaches that verse (Matt 18:6) as a de-salvation snip , versus what it is teaching. Namely, Rank in the Kingdom.

Matthew 18:1 (LEB) At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” ...
​

​

The verse doesn't say; to stumble (and be cast into fiery Hell). You added that to the verse. Stumbling is stumbling. You can't just redefine it to mean being cast into fiery Hell. The stumbling blocks are men of the world, not the little children of God:

The ... You left out teaches us this:

Matthew 18:7 (LEB) “Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!​

It's amazing, but not surprising, that OSAS can't see that the stumbling He is talking about is for the one who believes in Christ to be made to stumble so as to be cast into the fiery hell:

9“If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.
6 ...whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble (and be cast into fiery hell--see above), it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:9,6 NASB bold, underline, and parenthesis mine)

I wonder, is this going to be another case of 'it doesn't really mean what it so plainly says', and/or a convenient redefining of terms?

 

[chessman]

is this going to be another case of 'it doesn't really mean what it so plainly says', and/or a convenient redefining of terms?

Yes. It was your redefinition of the word "stumble" as soon as you attempted to redefine the word in the post I replied to.

(whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble (and be cast into fiery hell--see above)...Matthew 18:9,6 NASB bold and parenthesis mine)

At least now you admit to adding the parenthesis and/or redefinition of the word.

Of the 29 occurrences of the word "stumble", none mean "to be cast into fiery Hell" including in verse 9.

Definition
to put a snare (in the way), hence to cause to stumble, to give offense
NASB Translation
cause (1), cause...to stumble (2), causes (2), causes...to stumble (6), fall away (7), falls away (1), led into sin (1), makes...stumble (2), offend (1), offended (1), stumble (3), stumbling (1), take (1), take offense (1), took offense (2).

http://biblehub.com/greek/4624.htm

 

[netchaplain]

With approximately 50,000 Protestant denominations, sects, independents, etc. there can be no hope of "everyone believing the same doctrine concerning the receiving of faith (salvation)."

I believe nearly all Christians are of "one faith" concerning the truth that salvation comes only through the Lord Jesus. This is the doctrine of Christ concerning receiving salvation and all else is that which manifests this as we continue to be "conformed" and mature in His "image" (Rom 8:29), which is unconditional love to others and there's no greater work than this because everything God desires of us is directly related to it.

 

[Jim Parker]

I believe nearly all Christians are of "one faith" concerning the truth that salvation comes only through the Lord Jesus. This is the doctrine of Christ concerning receiving salvation

Here's what Jesus personally said:

John 5:28-29 (NKJV)… the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

Apparently, we also have a part to play in our salvation.

iakov the fool

 

[OzSpen]

With approximately 50,000 Protestant denominations, sects, independents, etc. there can be no hope of "everyone believing the same doctrine concerning the receiving of faith (salvation)."

Jim,

This is false information about the 50,000 Protestant denominations, sects, etc. This is a better explanation:

In an article entitled "30,000 Protestant Denominations?", Evangelical apologist Eric Svendsen exposes the falsehood of this fabrication. Briefly:

• Svendsen shows that the source of this figure is the World Christian Encyclopedia (David A. Barrett; Oxford University Press, 1982).
• Barrett cites a figure of 20,780 denominations. However not all of them are Protestants. According to Barrett, Protestants account for 8,196 (and incidentally, Roman Catholics account for 223).
• However, even this figure of eight thousand Protestant denominations is misleading, for Barrett defines "distinct denominations" as any group that might have a slightly different emphasis than another group. The distinction is made on the basis of jurisdiction, rather than differing beliefs and practices.
• Barrett breaks down the Protestant bloc into twenty-one major "traditions" which are much closer to what we usually mean by the word "denominations." It is interesting that Roman Catholics are subdivided into sixteen such "traditions."
• Svendsen concludes, "In short, Roman Catholic apologists have hurriedly, carelessly - and, as a result, irresponsibly - glanced at Barrett's work, found a large number (22,189), and arrived at all sorts of absurdities that Barrett never concluded." (source)

Scott Eric Alt explained it this way:

The source is the two-volume World Christian Encyclopedia (Barrett, Kurian, and Johnson; Oxford University Press). Take note of the passage where the 33,000 figure comes up:

World Christianity consists of 6 major ecclesiastico-cultural blocs, divided into 300 major ecclesiastical traditions, composed [sic] of over 33,000 distinct denominations in 238 countries (Vol. I, p. 16).​

So according to the WCE, the 33,000 figure represents “world Christianity.” Now unless a Catholic wants to suppose that “world Christianity” means Protestantism, the number would have to be something less. 33,000, according to the source from which the number comes, means the whole of Christianity, not Protestantism specifically.

The WCE then goes on to break down “world Christianity” into the following broad categories:

• Independents: 22,000 denominations
• Protestants: 9000 denominations
• Marginals: 1600 denominations
• Orthodox: 781 denominations
• Catholics: 242 denominations
• Anglicans: 168 denominations

Thus the immediate problem is that the WCE only classifies 9000 denominations (27% of the whole) as Protestant. To get to 33,000, one must add in the Independents, Marginals, Anglicans, and 232 of the Orthodox.

Among the 23,600 “Independents” and “Marginals” (70% of the whole) are large numbers of groups one would have a hard time calling Protestant. They include Mormons (122 denominations), Jehovah’s Witnesses (229 denominations), Masons (28 denominations), Christadelphians (21 denominations) Unitarians (29 denominations), Christian Science (59 denominations), Theosophists (3 more denominations), British Israelites (8 denominations), Prosperity Gospel groups (27 denominations), Oneness Pentecostals (680 denominations), “Hidden Buddhist Believers in Christ” (9 denominations), wandering bishops (12 denominations), Independent Nestorians (5 denominations), occultists (3 denominations), spiritists (20 denominations), Zionists (159 denominations), even “Arab radio/TV network” (19 denominations), “gay/homosexual tradition” (2 denominations), and schismatic Catholics (435 denominations). It is a strange and eclectic list. (See here and here.) [We Need to Stop Saying That There Are 33,000 Protestant Denomination, 9 February 2016]

Blessings,
Oz

 

[netchaplain]

Here's what Jesus personally said:

John 5:28-29 (NKJV)… the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

Apparently, we also have a part to play in our salvation.

iakov the fool

I strongly agree. Our part is twofold--receive it and manifest it, but not effect (produce) it.