The Bible, Theology, Essentials and Non-Essentials (The Significance of Silence) and The Church

Greg Strand

October 20, 2015

One of the commitments and distinguishing marks of the EFCA is what we refer to as “the significance of silence.” It is our commitment to affirm gospel essentials without equivocation, while granting loving charity on non-essentials. This challenge is, of course, distinguishing, discerning and determining the essential from the non-essential.

An added challenge is defining what it means to claim something is essential and something is non-essential. Essential or non-essential for what? For salvation? For orthodoxy? For Evangelicalism? For the EFCA? Etc.

We are neither the first to think this through, nor the first to be committed in principle (doctrine/truth) and practice (life and ministry) to have such doctrine and life practices. We have examples in church history of this, with greater and lesser “success’ and faithfulness.

I have previously attempted to summarize this, EFCA Theology Preconference: Soteriological Essentials and the “Significance of Silence” (3): What Does the Expression Not Mean?, which I also presented at the introductory message at this past year’s Theology Conference preconference. This past summer I also included this as one of the FAQs that is now included on our EFCA website: The Significance of Silence (Unity in Essentials, Dialogue in Differences)

James Emery White, pastor at Mecklenburg Community Church, recently wrote about how they as a local church are committed to this principle and he further explained how they attempt to live this out in practice: Unity, Liberty and Charity (HT to Paul Schliep). This is a local church, which in many ways, reflects a similar commitment as the EFCA. This is a local church example of what we are committed to, both in principle and practice, in the EFCA as a denomination. And, importantly, this commitment is grounded in the gospel of Jesus Christ (Jn. 17; Eph. 2:11-22).

To give this further thought, if the definition of “essential” is not determined, then it causes all kinds of problems. For example, when I teach on our SOF, although Article 2 on The Bible is an essential, it is not a soteriological essential. That is, someone can truly be saved without believing the Bible is inerrant. So if it is not a soteriological essential, is it an essential at all? Yes. It is an epistemological essential. When you begin to nuance it in this way, it begins to make sense. Otherwise you fall off the horse on one side, in which everything is considered to be an essential, or you fall off the horse on the other side, in which virtually nothing is considered to be an essential

And the other important nuance, is raising the issue of “essential for what/whom.” Is premillennialism an essential? What kind of an essential? Although not a soteriological essential or an epistemological essential, it is, however, an essential to affirm our EFCA SOF, and to be credentialed in the EFCA.

It can get confusing when you have different nuances to the same term, but without the nuance, it loses its significance. And at the end of the day, theology matters and theological distinctions matter, such that the presence or absence of an iota can make the difference between an orthodox view of Christ (“homoousios” [“consubstantial” or “of the same substance”]) and a heretical view of Christ (“homoiousios” [“of like substance”]).

D. Carlson

March 14, 2022

A logical response for you: You attempted to articulate how to determine "essential" and "non-essential" doctrines using what I would consider as humanly-devised methods. Wouldn't it be better to go to the Scripture and let the Scripture tell us what is "essential" and "non-essential"? After all, it's God's Word, right, and you'd think God knows best for us and our understanding. I think what the E-Free church does, as with a lot of American churches is make its material principle: "the least we have to believe/confess without causing offense or division." But, this hasn't helped our world, has it? Has the American church grown in faithfulness and understanding over the years since this notion of "silence" has crept through evangelicalism and the pop-culture church? I think an unwillingness to engage these doctrines, essential or otherwise, and an unwillingness to engage with people who believe differently or hold to a higher standard when it comes to Biblical truth and importance, is a sign of the times. Israel fell for the same sort of human foolishness. It didn't bode well for them. I doubt it will for us either. When we're told and encouraged to not be faithful to God's Word and to His teaching -- for Jesus commissioned His apostles to teach EVERYTHING He taught them, not just what they felt was essential -- then we create generations of Christians addicted to milk and not solid food. I think the E-Free church can do better, and I think you guys need to go back to your roots - I believe with all my heart that Confessional Lutheranism is still what's best for our western church. We don't play games with the Scripture, we read it and believe it and we don't even get into this "essential/non-essential" stuff because, if God said it, it's essential!

Greg Strand

March 14, 2022

Thank you for your comment. I appreciate what you have written, but I disagree with your assessment and claim.

The Heart of the Reformation

The heart of the Reformation consisted of two principles, the formal and the material. The formal principle affirmed the Bible is supreme and ultimate in authority. This was over against any and all other authorities, namely in this historical context the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. The material principle affirmed the gospel: justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus).

Protestants in general and Evangelicals in particular affirm sola Scriptura (not solo Scriptura). They also affirm that “all Scripture is inspired by God” (2 Tim. 3:16). All Scripture. Nothing is exempt. But those same individuals also conclude that when moving from the Bible to theology, and articulating creeds grounded in the Bible there are things there are fundamental articles, secondary fundamental articles, and nonfundamenal articles. This is affirmed by Protestants in the 16th century, including both Lutherans and Reformed.

Lutherans

I share that above since you claim our understanding of the Bible and our theological methodology consists of “humanly-devised methods” and you and Confessional Lutheranism are exempt by concluding “Confessional Lutheranism is still what's best for our western church. We don't play games with the Scripture, we read it and believe it and we don't even get into this "essential/non-essential" stuff because, if God said it, it's essential!” All Protestants, historically understood, affirm what is stated above. Furthermore, I include what I do below to point out to you that you as a Lutheran are not exempt from this either.

For example, the Lutherans attempted to articulate what was essential to believe and reject as a Lutheran early in the Reformation with the publication of the Augsburg Confession in 1530. In addition to a preface and a conclusion, this confession consists of twenty-eight articles, the first twenty-one present Lutheran teaching and reject contrary doctrines, with the final seven rejecting abuses in the Christian life. In this confession, the following, noted by one, was emphasized in the twenty-one articles: “the Trinity; original sin as true sin that would condemn if not forgiven; the deity and humanity of Jesus; his sacrifice for all human sin; justification by grace through faith without our works; the gospel, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper as actual tools of the Holy Spirit to create and sustain faith; good works as a result, not a cause of, salvation, motivated by the good news that salvation has been earned by us by Christ.”

The Lutherans also did this more definitively in the compilation of the major statements made by the Lutherans in the Book of Concord in 1580 , which remains a definitive text to this day. This consist of 9 major documents of the Lutherans: (1) the Apostles’ Creed, (2) the Nicene-Constantinople Creed (381), (3) the Athanasian Creed (ca., 350-600), (4) Luther’s Large and Small Catechisms (1529), (5) the Augsburg Confession (1530), (6) the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (1531), (7) the Smalcald Articles (1537), (8) the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope (1537), (9) the Formula of Concord (1577).

EFCA

Our practice in the EFCA is similar to other Protestants. (As an important historical marker, we trace our roots to Lutheranism in the Scandinavian countries in the 19th century.) In the fundamental articles of faith, there would be strong agreement. If not, and one moves away from the historic consensus of the church, it means the one is no longer Protestant, or in our case Evangelical. Here are some helpful things to say about the Bible, fundamentals of the faith and secondary matters, and doctrinal rank.

Norma Absoluta/Normans and Norma Normata

norma absoluta: absolute norm, applicable only to Scripture as principium theologiae (Scripture and God, the revelation and the one who reveals himself)

norma normans: the standardizing norm, applied to Scripture as that norm standing behind the standardized confessions

norma normata: a standardized norm applied to church confessions as they set forth the truths of Scripture.

Fundamentals of the Faith and Secondary Matters

Richard Muller (Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985], 45-46) identifies the way in which the Lutheran and Reformed Scholastics addressed this issue in order of importance: articuli fundamentals, the fundamental articles (of faith or doctrine); articuli fundamentals secundarii, secondary fundamental articles and articuli non-fundamentales, nonfundamental articles.

articuli fundamentales: fundamental articles (of faith or doctrine) – “the basic doctrines necessary to the Christian faith are distinguished from secondary or logically derivative doctrines.” These are the “doctrines without which Christianity cannot exist and the integrity of which is necessary to the preservation of the faith” (the body of truth once for all entrusted to the saints). This “includes only articles given by revelation, viz., the doctrine of sin and its consequences; the doctrine of the person and work of Christ; the doctrine of the resurrection; and the doctrine of the scriptural Word as the ground of faith.” This category is used to distinguish these fundamental articles, those of “first importance” (1 Cor. 15:3) “from certain highly important derivative articles, like baptism and the Lord’s Supper.”

articuli fundamentales secundarii: secondary fundamental articles – some of the fundamental articles “such as those concerned with baptism and the Lord’s Supper, might be lacking in a person’s faith, or at least lacking in correct definition, and that person still be saved in the promises of the gospel, since forgiveness of sins rests on faith in Christ, as witnessed in the Word, and not on acceptance of the doctrines of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.” Despite these differences and divides, the conclusion was that adherents of the other view were “Christian and participated in the promise of salvation in Christ because of their acceptance of the primary fundamental doctrines of the person and work of Christ,” even though they voiced concern that the other person’s doctrinal system was considered endangered.

articuli non-fundamentales: nonfundamental articles – “articles the denial of which does not endanger salvation since they are not fundamental to the maintenance of Christian truth and are not concerned with the objects of faith,” e.g., identity of the Antichrist and the nature of angels. “Such doctrines, nonetheless, are scriptural and, therefore, if rightly stated, edifying.”

Doctrinal Rank

Affirming the Bible is inspired, inerrant, sufficient and authoritative, we identify four categories of dogmatic rank, the notion that not all doctrinal claims stand on the same level:

Of First Importance

Of Second Importance

Of Third Importance

Disputable Matters

This four-level framework has been selected because it allows for enough nuance and distinction between levels without becoming overly complex. The two poles of this four-level framework are drawn directly from Scripture. Paul says, “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance …” (1Cor 15:3). In Rom. 14:1 Paul also says, “Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters.” (emphasis mine)

We have also developed a taxonomy/grid by which we determine this rank, the category in which a certain doctrinal issue falls:

Relevance to our understanding of the nature and character of God: To what extent does this doctrine or practice reveal the person and nature of God?

Connection to the gospel and the overarching narrative of the Bible: How directly is this doctrine or practice connected to the gospel and to the storyline of the whole Bible?

Exegetical clarity: To what extent does Scripture unambiguously affirm this doctrine or practice?

Biblical prominence: How prominent is this doctrine or practice in Scripture?

Historical consensus: How widespread is the consensus on this doctrine or practice in the Church of both the past and present?

Application to the church and the believer: How relevant is this doctrine or practice to us today?

The Bible stands alone as God’s Word. It and God are uniquely connected. It is not included in the grid. In other words, we must affirm the inerrancy and absolute authority of the Bible. There is no disagreement or equivocation on that. Beginning with the Bible as foundational, we then consider these six issues to determine dogmatic rank. While affirming the truth and truthfulness of the whole Bible, there will be differences of understanding. This is when we begin to apply the principles to discern dogmatic rank.

The Bible, Theology, Essentials and Non-Essentials (The Significance of Silence) and The Church

Send a Response

Responses