I am not sold on the “essentials and non-essentials” language that is often used in theological discussion. I agree that there are essential truths that the body must remain unified on. However, at what point can we say that a truth is not an essential one? If it is truth is it not eternal, the character of God, his very expression, Christ himself, the Word, regardless of its position in our systematic?

This is not to say that any truth is grounds for division; on the contrary! When we get down to defining what is essential truth, it is often stated to be a teaching on which one’s salvation depends. That is, if one holds to a truth one is saved, if one does not hold to this truth, one is not in Christ. Our measure, then, is whether one is in a relationship with Christ. The other scripture basis for division is if one is living in immorality and is unrepented, i.e., not submitted in love to the body of Christ. Again, the basis is the state of one’s relationship. At this point all truth that one expounds is considered to be as good as non-truth for it comes from a heart that is hardened, in which the Truth does not dwell at all.

Therefore I do not see a way of drawing a line in our doctrine between essential and non-essential doctrine, for the line is not based on the technicalities of one’s dogmatics, but on the status of his relationship with Christ.

If I were to argue that beyond this all truth is equally important and essential, I might (and prefer to) argue that we should be equally gracious to those of various theological persuations as long as they exhibit the humility and love consistent with their holding fast to the head through whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God. For in Christ alone is truth. So if they are in Christ the truth that they do not know and express is a part of the righteousness that is credited to them by faith. And the falsehood which they blindly consider to be truth is the sin partaken of by Adam and Eve since their belief in the lie of Satan and is also covered in the blood of Christ by his grace.

If I claim to know something, I cannot claim to know it exhaustively; I am finite. I do say that I know things, though likely some of that which I am sure of knowing I will later renounce, for I have done so in the past and am not yet perfected. Does this mean that nothing can be known for sure? I would think not, though perhaps this is the case. How then do I function intellectually and make absolute statements?

Let us assume for the sake of argument that I can know something for sure. Even that knowledge may not be useful to me if I am not employing it for its intended means (assuming that absolute knowledge comes from an absolute being and therefore was brought into being for a particular purpose). In this case I would not really know it certainly for its very purpose is not fulfilled and thus its knowledge cannot be complete. If we are to believe what is written in scripture, knowledge comes not from a dispassionate law book, but from a personal and dynamic God. Therefore knowledge is part of relationship, and relationship as it was intended to be had with the absolute God. In this case, I know insofar as the developement of my relationship with God permits me to know.

If, however, I cannot know anything in absolute certainty, then to even function I must decide to know something sufficiently. This knowledge must be based on belief, for it cannot be certain. I must become a pragmatist and speak of knowing and operating according to what is beneficial. What can be beneficial but what allows all things to function in harmony? The very idea of harmony causes me to look to its composer, and understand what he desires to create. In scripture the creator creates for his pleasure in a relationship with his creation. In this case I mayknow insofar as it is beneficial in bringing about the kind of relationship that the creator desires.