Essentials and Non-essentials

[corinthpastorbob]

"Ruts" should primarily be related to the faith that is common to believers in Jesus Christ across the years and around the world. Anything else that becomes a rut leads to the danger of permanently establishing my own or my generation's preference or even blind spots.

How do we discern which beliefs or disciplines are rut-worthy? I go back to the wisdom of Petrus Meiderlinus, who either coined or refined (depending on whom you read) the motto, "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things, charity." According to Philip Schaff, an eighteenth century German historian, Meiderlinus was a Lutheran divine in a Germany torn by the ravages of the Thirty Years War - an inter-Christian war that shredded the church, ravaged the land, and stained the reputation of Jesus' followers. Meiderlinus pleaded for unity in a tract that included the motto above.

But he did more. He defined how one knows what is "essential" - in our terminology, what "ruts" ought to be preserved. The "essentials" (necessaria) are (1) articles of faith necessary to salvation; (2) articles derived from clear testimonies of the Bible; (3) articles decided by the whole church in a synod or symbol; (4) articles held by all orthodox divines as necessary. Non-essentials, according to Meiderlinus, are dogmas (1) not contained in the Bible; (2) not belonging to the common inheritance of faith; (3) not unanimously taught by theologians; (4) left doubtful by grave divines; (5) not tending to piety, charity, and edification. (Source: Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. VII, p. 650)

That's a good grid with which to discern the ruts that must be made and preserved.
_________________
Bob Thompson