What Doctrines Are Essential? (Part 1)
February 6th, 2008
(By John MacArthur)
How can a Christian determine which doctrines are essential and which are not?
To begin with, the strongest words of condemnation in all the New Testament are aimed at false teachers who corrupt the Gospel. Therefore the Gospel message itself must be acknowledged as a primary point of fundamental doctrine.
But what message will determine the content of our gospel testimony? Let’s turn to Scripture itself and attempt to lay out some biblical principles for determining which articles of faith are truly essential to authentic Christianity.
I. All Fundamental Articles of Faith Must Be Drawn from the Scriptures
First, if a doctrine is truly fundamental, it must have its origin in Scripture, not tradition, papal decrees, or some other source of authority. Paul reminded Timothy that the Scriptures are “able to make thee wise unto salvation” (2 Timothy 3:15, KJV). In other words, if a doctrine is essential for salvation, we can learn it from the Bible. The written Word of God therefore must contain all doctrine that is truly fundamental. It is able to make us “adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17). If there were necessary doctrines not revealed in Scripture, those promises would ring empty.
The psalmist wrote, “The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul” (Psalm 19:7). That means Scripture is sufficient. Apart from the truths revealed to us in Scripture, there is no essential spiritual truth, no fundamental doctrine, nothing essential to soul-restoration. We do not need to look beyond the written Word of God for any essential doctrines. There is nothing necessary beyond what is recorded in God’s Word.
This, of course, is the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura -- Scripture alone. According to the Bible itself, no supposed spiritual authority outside “the sacred writings” of Scripture can give us wisdom that leads to salvation. No papal decrees, no oral tradition, no latter-day prophecy can contain truth apart from Scripture that is genuinely fundamental.
II. The Fundamentals Are Clear in Scripture
Second, if an article of faith is to be regarded as fundamental, it must be clearly set forth in Scripture. No “secret knowledge” or hidden truth-formula could ever qualify as a fundamental article of faith. No cryptic key is necessary to unlock the teaching of the Bible.
The truth of God is not aimed at learned intellectuals; it is simple enough for a child. “Thou didst hide these things from the wise and intelligent and didst reveal them to babes” (Matthew 11:25, KJV). The Word of God is not a puzzle. It does not speak in riddles. It is not cryptic or mysterious. It is plain and obvious to those who have spiritual ears to hear. “The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple” (Psalm 19:7).
The point is not that every fundamental article of faith must be supported with an explicit proof text. The doctrine of the Trinity, for example, is certainly essential to true Christianity-and it is very clear in Scripture-but you will find no comprehensive statement of the Trinity from any single passage of Scripture.
This does not mean that a doctrine must be non-controversial in order to be considered a fundamental article. Some would argue that the only test of whether something is essential to true Christianity is whether it is affirmed by all the major Christian traditions. By that rule, hardly anything of any substance would remain to distinguish the Christian Gospel from the “salvation” offered by pagan morality or Islamic theology. “There is much truth in the remark of Clement of Alexandria; ‘No Scripture, I apprehend, is so favourably treated, as to be contradicted by no one.’” (Herman Witsius, Sacred Dissertations on the Apostles’ Creed [Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1993 reprint], 1:21)
(To be continued tomorrow)
I love how John starts out with the necessity, the suffiency, and the perspicuity of the Scriptures. The Scriptures are necessary for salvation (Romans 10:17), they are sufficient for salvation (II Timothy 3:15), and they are perspicuous about the need for salvation and the way of salvation (Romans 3:23, John 14:6).
No one will agree entirely with what others call “fundamental” doctrines, but it’s good that this article lays the groundwork for criteria rather than resort to the oft-quoted “five fundamentals” claim.
I believe in the interdenominational spirit of the early fundamentalist movement, and I welcome the fellowship of brothers and sisters in Christ who may disagree about some areas. I think it’s great that MacArthur, Piper, Mohler, Sproul, etc. can work together on things. One thing I have trouble understanding, though, is the role of baptism. I guess the majority here would think it’s a non-fundamental? That’s the impression I get with the MacArthur-Sproul and White-Shisko “friendly” debates. Piper also allows membership into his church of people who were only baptized as infants if that’s their conviction, right? I agree this may not be a “fundamental” doctrine according to the above criteria, but we’ve come a long way from the time when the early Baptists referred to infant baptism as “the badge of the whore”.
By the way, there are some people who still believe I John 5:7 cannot be totally disqualified, and that there does exist a comprehensive statement about the Trinity in scripture! (well, a few of us anyway…) I guess that’s an issue that is not fundamental.
I’m looking forward to this series!
With all due respect, you write “The point is not every fundamental article of faith must be supported with a explicit proof text. The doctrine of the Trinity, for example, is certainly essential to true Christianity-and is it is very clear in Scripture-but you will find no comprehensive statement of the Trinity from any single passage of Scripture.” If a doctrine is not explicitly taught in God’s Scripture, we should be very cautious of that doctrine, and examine it’s origin. I for one, do not find the doctrine of the trinity to be “very clear in scripture.” What I do find to be very clear is that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. Nowhere do I find that He is “god the son.” I must believe what Scripture explicitly declares Yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things and we for Him and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. 1 Cor 8:5.
You said that Psalm 19:7 means “Scripture is sufficient. Apart from the truths revealed to us in Scripture, there is no essential spiritual truth, no fundamental doctrine, nothing essential to soul-restoration. We do not need to look beyond the written Word of God for any essential doctrines. There is nothing necessary beyond what is recorded in God’s Word.”
I’ve been looking for a passage that says that that’s what Psalm 19:7 means, and I can’t find one. From what passage to you get that meaning?
Seeker,
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you said, but if not, here are two passages that refer to Jesus as God:
John 1:1-10
Heb. 1:8-9
Is the Doctrine of Origins an Essential doctrine?
As Texas debates creationism in the classroom, here’s a different question: Should evolution be in the pulpit?
Absolutely, say hundreds of clergy who will observe Evolution Sunday today.
From: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-blow_10met.ART.State.Bulldog.450d91a.html
Can a Christian believe in macro-evolution since it’s not essential to possessing salvation?
Can a Christian espouse macro-evolution if s/he can find no biblical basis that s/he is forbidden to deny macro-evolution? S/he will say that there are many Christians who hold to theistic evolution.
What would this series of articles say about the Doctrine of Origins being an “essential” doctrine?
Seeker,
Look at Isaiah 9:6-7
This passage is what convinced me beyond any shadow of doubt in the Trinity.
Also, look at the passage where Christ says He will send the Holy Spirit and not leave us orphans, but then also refers to that spirit as His own (And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. (John 14:16-18 ESV)
“He dwells with you” is obviously Christ alluding to Himself, so it follows that “will be in you” also refers to Christ as affirmed by “I will come to you”. So, while we know we have the Holy Spirit, He is also the Spirit of Christ even as Christ is at the right hand of the Father now.
Damien,
I agree most adamantly with you on that score!
Baptism is a fundamental because Jesus made it so! It is for us, as it was for Christ, “to fulfill all righteousness”, else Christ Himself would not have commanded it to be done, as did the Apostles throughout the book of Acts with EVERY conversion. No waiting until next month either! We may not agree on what part baptism plays, but we should all agree as believers that it is required Post-belief and repentance, never Pre-belief or Pre-repentance!
Wow! It’s timely that I stumbled across this series today, as I too have been contemplating this topic for several years, and was specifically discussing it with my husband just this morning. I haven’t had time to sift through everyone’s thoughts just yet (seems like there’s some rich stuff here) . . . but I wanted to throw something out there. Could it be that we’re trying to hard to categorize truths into essential vs. non-essential? This whole paradigm came from Augustine, I believe. But, it seems to me, that the paradigm is often used as license to avoid controversial topics not pertaining to salvation. Rather, I believe all of God’s truth contained in the Holy Scriptures was given to us in order that we might strive toward “unity of faith.” The key is fleshing out all of God’s Word in a spirit of love.
Mike F
If “sola scriptura” is the standard by which we are to determine our essential doctrines then it should be just that, scripture alone, not creeds of men, that is the foundation we build upon. Perhaps, the reason there is no explicit proof text for the doctrine of the trinity is that it was not the concept of the relationship between the Father and the Son in the first century ecclesia. I quoted,at least in my opinion, an explicit text from the apostle Paul from his first letter to the believers in Corinth, a city with it’s fair share of pagan deities. Yet for us there is one God, the Father out of whom are all things, and we for Him and one Lord, Jesus Christ through whom are all things and through whom we live.1 Cor.8:6 This, in my opinion, is a very clear statement. One God= Father One Lord= Jesus Christ. This scripture however, does not add up to the concept of the trinity. One God= 3 persons Father, Son and Holy Ghost. One Lord= the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the Holy Ghost is Lord. Perhaps, the apostle Paul didn’t know the full revelation of the “Godhead”. I’m the first to admit that I am a simple minded man. If the trinity is one of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith, why didn’t Jesus, Paul or one of the other apostles spell it out clearly for one such as myself?
Paul states that all things are out of God,the Father. Jesus by His own admission said that He came forth out of God John8:42.Jesus stated that the Father is spirit. Jn4:24 Paul taught that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. Col1:15 This must make God the Father both spirit and invisible. This also must mean that Jesus is God’s visible image and firstborn.Wow!, Let’s read on. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and the earth visible and invisible whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in Him, all the fullness should dwell, and by Him, to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.Wow!! Through Him! That brings us back to our original verse. Let’s see if it all fits together or not. Yet for us there is one God, the Father,( Invisible spirit) out of whom are all things(even His only begotten Son, who by the way, created all of creation) and we for Him (God has a plan for each of us, we’re made for His pleasure) and one Lord, Jesus Christ(the visible image of the Invisible God, the firstborn over all creation and the firstborn from the dead) through whom are all things(God through His Firstborn created all in His vast universe)and we through Him.(it is through the sacrifice at calvary, that Jesus paid, that God is reconciling the universe back to Himself.) Wow!! Maybe Paul did have the full revelation of God and His Son.
Apparently my trackback didn’t work with this site. I appreciate this series of posts very much. I’ve been debating this topic over on my blog with people who argue that all doctrines should be essential, and the idea of “fundamental doctrines” is either novel, unscriptural or both.
My latest post cites this series: The Concept of “Fundamental doctrines”: Modern Reductionism or Historic Protestant Doctrine?
There is not much written explicitly on this topic anymore, so I thank MacArthur and Phil Johnson for their contributions.