BiblicalInsights.net

The Christian Chronicle published an article titled, “What is a ‘salvation issue?'” written by Benny Tabalujan.  (The Christian Chronicle, August, 2018, p. 30). The question, “what is a salvation issue?” arises when individuals like Nobie Stone declare that the “age of the earth” is not a salvation issue.  Stone states, “We have a similar conflict today between “young Earthers” and “old Earthers.”  Again, the issue is not a matter of salvation” (Genesis 1 and Lessons From Space: Faith, Reason, and Nature, p. x, Author’s Preface to the Second Edition). In addition to this comment by Stone, I have personally heard that the following doctrines are not salvation issues:  marriage, divorce, remarriage; the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20; premillennialism; moderate use of alcohol; and that nothing is a salvation issue because we are not saved by getting our doctrine right.  The use of the phrase, “salvation issue” begs the question, “who decides the list?”  Tabalujan affirms that there is no biblical checklist.  He states, “humans tend to make up their own based on cultural norms, denominational distinctives and personal preferences.”  This exposes the concept as a man-made doctrine.  There simply is no Scriptural authority for setting aside any of the doctrines or commands of Christ.  The Scriptures affirm, “Whosoever transgresses, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.  If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that bidest him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (II John 9-11).  The doctrine of Christ is the teaching from Christ.  All of the doctrine of Christ is a salvation issue.  When we transgress the law of Christ, we sin, because sin is a transgression of the law (I John 3:4).  The persons who affirm that certain doctrines taught by Christ are not salvation issues are affirming that you can transgress the doctrine of Christ without sin in contradiction of John’s plain statement.  Any doctrine that contradicts a plain passage of Scripture is a false doctrine.           John harmonizes quite well with Matthew’s statement regarding the Great Commission, “And Jesus spake unto them, saying, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:18-20).  Labeling some of the doctrines of Christ as “not salvation issues” creates a man-made doctrine that sets at naught the commandments of the Lord.  This usurps the authority of Jesus Christ and elevates man’s authority over God’s authority.  Jesus plainly teaches that all men are amenable to all of the law of Christ.  This includes marriage, divorce, and remarriage, Jesus’ teaching about creation, His teaching about end-time events, His teaching about faith and baptism in Mark 16:9-20 and His teaching about righteousness and morality.
Tabalujan also states that we must not be dismissive about a doctrine that we may consider to be less important than another doctrine.  Jesus spoke of the first and great commandment and the second commandment in Matt. 22:36-39.  He was not teaching that we must obey the first commandment (to love God with all of our heart, soul and mind) and could dismiss the second (to love your neighbor as yourself) because it is somehow inferior to the first commandment.  Jesus spoke of weightier matters of the law and expressly enjoined that these weightier matters (judgment, mercy, faith)must be kept, but the lesser (tithing herbs) must not be neglected (Matt. 23:23).  Jesus said, “….these ought ye to have done and not to leave the other undone.”  Clearly, all of the commandments of God are to be respected and kept.  If men teach a doctrine that undermines respect and obedience to any of God’s commands or doctrines, he transgresses the law and so sins against God.
Failure to abide in the doctrine of Christ causes a breach in fellowship with God and this is a salvation issue.  The false doctrine, “this is not a salvation issue” is itself divisive because it is not found in Scripture.  It is divisive because it usurps God’s authority.  It is divisive because no two people could ever agree on the list of doctrines excluded from salvation.  It should be rejected immediately for what it is–false doctrine.

Jonathan Sarfati, in Refuting Compromise, makes an important observation and distinction.  He states, “It sounds very nice to say that God’s revelation in Scripture must agree with His revelation in nature.  But this overlooks a key difference between nature and the books of the Bible, that is, what constitutes the data in both domains.  Ross (Hugh Ross-DS) and CMI would agree that the propositions contained in the 66 canonical books of the Bible are facts of special revelation, but what are the facts of nature?  Nature is not propositional revelation, so it is not subject to objective hermeneutical principles.  Rather, in a study of nature (that is, science) propositions must be formulated from observations by interpreting them in a framework or paradigm.  This framework depends largely on the axioms, or starting assumptions of the scientist” (p. 41).
The Big Bang theory is not scientific truth.  In fact, within science itself there is a debate about origins.  “In his 1950 BBC radio series, The Nature of the Universe, Sir Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), mockingly called this idea the big bang (in doing so, he coined the phrase-DS), considering it preposterous.  Hoyle never wavered from this opinion.  In 1994, he wrote, “Big Bang cosmology refers to an epoch that cannot be reached by any form of astronomy and, in more than two decades, it has not produced a single successful prediction” (Sarfati, Refuting Compromise, pp. 150-151). Hoyle affirmed the steady state theory in contrast to the Big Bang theory.  We can confidently affirm that “science” itself is conflicted about the origins of the universe.  We affirm again, the Big Bang theory is not scientific truth.  Consequently, it is an egregious error to use the Big Bang theory in a superior way to the Scriptural account of creation given in Genesis 1.  When individuals attempt to change the interpretation of God’s Word (truth) to conform to “science” (the Big Bang theory), they fall into error.
Prof. Evelleen Richards, a non-creationist, states, “Science…is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus.  What counts as “truth” is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time..” (Ibid, p. 42).  For this very reason, “science” must never take precedence over Scripture.
This is one of the fundamental mistakes Nobie Stone makes in Genesis 1 and Lessons From Space (published by the Warren Christian Apologetics Center).  Stone attempts to use the Big Bang theory to compromise the Genesis account of creation and force interpretations on the text that cannot be supported by the lexical and grammatical features of the text.  Stone desires to compromise the biblical text with a scientific theory which is based on inferential science and not observational science.  He simply does not compare truth with truth and his efforts at compromise fail for this reason.