Fundamentals: What Are the Essentials? Jude 3
Jude 1:3 NASB “Beloved, while I
was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the
necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith
which was once for all handed down to the saints.”
We have taken time to begin to look at the
question: what is really the essence in terms of what we believe in
Christianity of all the doctrines, all the things that we believe that the
Bible teaches? What are those elements that are truly at the core and truly
essential for Christian belief? What are the fundamentals, we might ask, of the
faith? We began to look at the importance of the inerrancy and infallibility of
the Word of God as at the very core of our understanding of the fundamentals,
the foundational beliefs of Christianity without which we have no Christianity,
we have no unique Christian teaching or belief system.
Verse 3 gives us a window into the process
of inspiration of Scripture: how God works in and through the writers of
Scripture to produce the actual writing, the original, what is called the
autograph, the original writing of the Scripture. Here we have Jude, an apostle
who intends to write about one topic and then is so moved by God the Holy
Spirit that he writes on a different topic. He uses the word spoude [spoudh],
meaning eagerness earnestness or diligence. He is basically saying he was very
diligent. He was thinking hard, working hard, writing concentrating on one
topic that needed to be discussed related to our common salvation or
soteriology, but he said: “I had a necessity.” He uses the present tense of
verb echo [e)xw]
which means to have or to hold something, plus a another noun, ananke [a)nagkh], which
means compulsion, a necessity. This is merely a way of expressing the fact that
he had a necessity, a compulsion. Something within him is pressing upon his
mind to write on a different topic.
He says, “I have a compulsion to write to
you, exhorting you …” This word parakaleo
[parakalew]
for exhortation is the same word that is used to describe the role of the Holy
Spirit as the parakletos [paraklhtoj],
the noun form, and he is writing exhorting. parakaleo
tells us that this is the style or type of literature Jude uses. It is not just
a letter, it is an exhortation. An exhortation is a challenge to application to
the audience. So it is not just simply a letter. He is not just giving a
logical doctrinal discourse like Paul did with Romans, he is not writing a
historical narrative like Luke did with the Gospel or with the book of Acts, he
is not addressing specific questions as Paul did in 1 Corinthians; but he is
writing an exhortation, a specific challenge, a pointed challenge, to his
audience. It was that they needed to contend earnestly for the faith.
The verb translated “contend” is the Greek
word epagonizomai [e)pagwnizomai],
a present active infinitive expressing his purpose in writing. It is usually a
word found in expressing the struggle, the competition, the
effort that goes forth in an athletic competition. One commentator on Jude
writes of this particular verb that “it was also used generally of any
conflict, contest, debate, or law suit. Involved is the thought of the
expenditure of all one’s energy to prevail.” This is not something that is done
in a haphazard manner, it is not a sort of secondary desire or objective that
comes up; it is a recognition that we are giving all of our energy to this—to
contending for the faith, to make sure that the faith is preserved accurately
and without dilution. Often the verb is used metaphorically to note a spiritual
conflict, so immediately it brings in to focus that this is part of the angelic
conflict, part of spiritual warfare. We are constantly under attack both from
our sin nature internally, the cosmic system or the world system externally,
Satan externally, to compromise the truth of God’s Word. So he says that “this
is used metaphorically to denote a spiritual conflict in which believers are
engaged.”
According to Alford, “the preposition epi [e)pi] in the compound gives the purpose
for which the fight is to be waged. The defensive nature of the conflict is
made clear by the following dative the faith.” So the purpose for this is the
sense of sense of fighting, the struggle, and it is for the faith. The word
translated “faith” is the Greek noun pistis
[pistij]
and it not only means the act of believing but it also refers or describes the
content of what is believed. There is a body of belief here, and the fact is
that this is once for all delivered to the saints. It is viewed as a completed
body of revelation, a body of beliefs, a completed set of doctrines or
teachings that are distinct and unique and essential to Christianity. What
exactly does it mean to be essential?
When we use this phrase “the essentials of
Christianity,” are we saying the same thing, are we referring to the same body
of beliefs? Are we talking about the same fundamental, foundational, unchanging,
core doctrines of Christianity that distinguish Christianity from all other
world religions? The idea that Jude communicates here is that we are to
contend, strive or fight diligently and earnestly for the faith, i.e. for this
set body of beliefs, “which was once for all handed down to the saints.”
In terms of contending there are two areas
in which we all need to contend for the faith. The first is internally and the
second is externally. The foundational battle for every one of us is
internally. We need to contend for the faith in our own soul. We need to
recognise that there is a battle for truth that takes place in our own soul.
The sin nature wants to reject the truth of God and assert its own autonomy. Then
there is, as a believer, our new nature in Christ that wishes to focus on the
truth and wishes to grow and mature. So there is this internal struggle, it is
the war of the flesh versus the new life we have in Christ and walking by the
Spirit. So the first battle is to contend for truth in our own soul and to
understand what the faith consists of and why it is essential, and not make
that term too broad. We don’t want to make it too narrow either. There are some
people who want to make it so narrow that everything that they believe is
essential. But we have to look at just what the core fundamental beliefs are
that distinguish Christianity from anything else.
Externally there always should be a
willingness to content for truth within the local church, to maintain the
purity of the teaching of the local church, and this is why local churches have
doctrinal statements. But just a word of warning on doctrinal
statements. There are often people who will say they looked at so and so’s doctrinal statement and it
seems very good. There has been a trend in the last thirty or forty years to minimise
doctrinal statements and to not get very technical on the doctrinal statement. But
the details are really important. But even if there is just a sort of generic
doctrinal statement in many Bible churches, especially in
But the problem in most churches isn’t
really with the doctrinal statement per se, it is with
their philosophy of ministry. Many times a man has gone to a particular church
to be a pastor and some sort of disruption occurs within the first few months
or years that he is there because his philosophy of ministry is different from
the traditional philosophy of ministry of the church. This is really where the
battle is being fought today. Many pastors and churches will affirm a
historically conservative, biblically-based doctrinal statement but then they
compromise it in their philosophy of ministry. In other words, why they think
the local church exists and how they think the local church should conduct
itself in matters of worship, of Sunday school, in matters the kind of songs
that are chosen, the length of the message, the focal point of the pulpit
ministry; all of these things are part of a philosophy of ministry. That is not
usually contained in writing anywhere in most churches and it is usually not
contained within a doctrinal statement. And so you can go to one Bible church
that has a doctrinal statement that is identical to another Bible church, and
yet they are almost 180 degrees opposite one another in terms of what goes on on a day-to-day basis within the structure of the church—Bible
classes, Sunday school, worship and all of the other things. This is simply
because they have radically different philosophies of ministry. That should
also be part of our understanding of the essentials of Christianity.
So there are battles that take place to
contend for the faith within the local church as well as outside the local
church in light of how evangelicals or fundamentalists focus on the essential
truths, because this does affect organisations that go beyond the local church.
It affects missionary organisations, Bible colleges, seminaries; there are many
organisations that exist outside of a local church. There is a lot of debate
over the legitimacy of para-church organisations but
that goes to a philosophy of ministry, not to essential doctrine.
Jude’s warning that we need
to contend for the faith is one that is consistent with the other writers of
Scripture: recognition that apostasy is as close as the next day, that someone
could come along tomorrow or the next day who begins
to influence a local church in an erroneous direction. The apostle Paul gave
this warning to the leaders of the churches in
Acts
Acts 20:31 NASB “Therefore be
on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did
not cease to admonish each one with tears.” So part of the role of the pastor
is to warn the congregation passionately about false teaching and the impact of
false teachers within the congregation.
Whenever we talk about the foundational
belief of Christians we have to deal with this issue of authority, the issue of
how we know truth, how we know what is true, what is essential and what is
non-essential. The foundation for any belief system, any philosophical system,
always has to do with authority. For Christians in historic traditional Christian
theology this is the area known as bibliology or the study
and the authority of the Bible. In bibliology we seek
to answer various questions such as, how was the Bible revealed? Trying to understand the process of inspiration. There are
different views on inspiration. There are those who believe that inspiration is
a dictation of God, and this might be true in some areas of Scripture, such as
God giving the Mosaic Law to Moses. Elements of the Torah were clearly
dictated. Others suggest that the Bible was revealed merely in terms of ideas.
Other questions that come up are: are there errors in our modern English
versions? What about the Greek and the Hebrew manuscripts that we have? So, are
there errors in the Bible? Are there errors in the original writings, or not? If
you start with a text that has errors, then how do we know how many errors have
crept in over time? But if you start with an original that has no errors then
you can theoretically get back to an accurate copy of the original.
All of this has to do with the process of
inspiration and whether we have an inerrant text, i.e. a text that was without
error, and what the extent of that inerrancy was. This was a major battle
within what became known as “fundamentalism.” We live in a time when this word “fundamentalism”
has been taken by the media and distorted. It has been used to be equated with
religious quacks and people who believe in some sort of crazy, outdated ideas
that completely reject any kind of modern science. So the fundamentalists of Islam
who are the radical Islamist terrorists are suddenly equated in the news media
to Christian fundamentalists. The only difference is that Christian
fundamentalists historically have not been violent. But the Bible is against
violence for that sake so that the violence of the Crusades was antithetical to
the revelation of Scripture, whereas the violence of Islam is consistent with
teachings of the Koran. Fundamentalism has received a negative slant in recent
years but we will use it within its original historical context.
We have seen that the rise of
fundamentalism comes out of British and American theology in the 19th
century. There are several strands that led to the development of
fundamentalism in the early 20th century. First there was the thread
that came out of Princeton Theological Seminary which was originally founded to
be a training ground for pastors. It was originally called The Log College. In
the 19th century
A second development came up in the 19th
century known as dispensationalism. Dispensationalism also had its roots
in historic Calvinism, and that is because coming out of the Protestant Reformation
in the 1500s there was this emphasis on literal, grammatical, historical
interpretation. As that worked itself out in other areas of theology beyond
just soteriology (salvation) many who held to Reformed theology, many
Presbyterians, began to believe in a future literal Millennium of a thousand
years where Jesus Christ would personally rule and reign from the throne in
Jerusalem. By the end of the 1500s there was a shift developing toward pre-millenniumism. It reached its high water mark in the 1800s and,
according to J.C. Ryle, well over half of the Anglican
pastors in
As we move historically from the
Protestant Reformation up to the beginning of the 19th century there
is a recovery of the literal, historical, grammatical interpretation of
Scripture which led to an understanding of a future interpretation of prophecy
the Olivet discourse in Matthew 24 and other passages would be fulfilled in the
future. So there was the recovery of futurism. Along with that was also a
recovery of the view of a future plan that God had for
J.N. Darby influenced a tremendous number of
people in
Scofield
was instrumental in the founding of a number of Bible colleges and Institutes
in late 19th and early 20th centuries. He was also
instrumental in founding a lot of schools through the influence of his study
Bible which came out in 1909. Dwight Moody founded Moody Bible Institute, also
a school in
So the second root in modern
fundamentalism was the rise and development of dispensationalism and especially
pre-millennialism, emphasising a literal future interpretation of prophecy.
A third strand that was important was an
answer by conservative biblical scholars to the rising Protestant liberalism that
was published over a five-year period called The Fundamentals. Twelve
volumes came out in that five-year period. This is where the term “fundamentalism”
originally derived.
Christian History Magazine
had one of their publication focus on the rise of
fundamentalism from 1870 to 1950. They give a timeline in defining the issues from
1900 to
It is interesting that all the
denominations in the US split between north and south leading up to the Civil War,
mostly because the northern Yankee Christians did not want any of their money
going to support southern missionaries who believed in slavery. These
denominations all split between the 1840s and just before the Civil War. All
the northern denominations drifted into liberalism decades before their
southern counterparts who all remained more conservative.
There were a number of public confrontations
in the 1920s. In 1923 Gresham Machen published his
book Christianity and Liberalism, which is one of the most scholarly and
definitive assaults against liberalism you could ever read. In 1923 the Baptist
Bible Union formed to gather fundamentalists of various denominations. What
happened between the early 20s and the late 30s is that about every four or
five years another group of conservative biblicists
would leave the northern Presbyterian church. One of these groups became known
as The Greater Association of Regular Baptists. Baptist Bible Seminary in
Then they go back and trace the rise of
liberalism and neo-orthodoxy in the late 19th century. One thing to
know would be 1917 and Walter Rauschenbusch’s book A
Theology of the Social Gospel. There is a returning to the social gospel
idea among liberal evangelicals today which is just a throwback. We are going
through another fundamentalist-modernist controversy. The problem is that most
conservatives don’t know that and are completely unaware that this is taking
place. The key issue is, as always, the inerrancy and infallibility of
Scripture.
A fourth strand was the assault of
Darwinism which culminates in the Scopes trial in 1925. But the fundamentalists
reject Darwinism and emphasise a literal Genesis and a literal creation.
The fifth strand that affects the rise of
fundamentalism is the rise of higher criticism, which is an assault of biblical
authorship and the biblical text.
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
is an extremely lengthy document defining what is meant by the inerrancy of
Scripture. But they recognised that it is one thing to affirm the literal historicity
of the text and the literal inerrancy of the text but it is another thing to affirm
a literal, historical, grammatical interpretation. They recognised that if they
don’t define interpretation then for practical purposes many will give away
inerrancy. So they also came out a few years later with a statement on
interpretation, but they couldn’t really reach to a consensus among
evangelicals and so this laid the groundwork for the erosion that has occurred
in the view of the text and the Bible among evangelicals, seminaries and
theologians since the late 1970s.
The issue is that we have to contend for
the truth. If the truth is up for grabs then there is no truth. So there has to
be a set truth and this can only be true if there is a set body of revelation
that is inerrant, that is dependable and that we can trust. So at the very core
of whatever it is we say we believe when we contend for the faith, we have to
contend for the inerrancy and the infallibility of Scripture. The Word of God
is alive and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword. Why? Because all Scripture is breathed out by God, and it is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
All of Scripture is breathed out by God; God is the ultimate source.