Common sense makes it crystal-clear to most people that some truths in Scripture are of primary importance, and other truths are less vital.For example, most people would agree that the deity of Christ is an essential doctrine of Christianity, but Sabbatarianism is not. (In other words, committed Christians might differ among themselves on the question of whether and how rigorously the Old Testament Sabbath restrictions should apply to Christians on the Lord's day; but authentic Christians do not disagree on whether Jesus is God.) Again, common sense is sufficient for most people to recognize the validity of some distinction between primary and secondary truths.
Unfortunately, "common sense" is not as common as it used to be. (It's one of the early fatalities of the postmodern era.) And with increasing frequency, I encounter people who challenge the distinction evangelicals have historically made between fundamental and secondary doctrines.
Some rather extreme fellows have begun a quasi-Christian cult located not far from where I live, and they actually teach that all truth is primary and every disagreement is worth fighting about and ultimately dividing over if agreement cannot be reached. Either agree with them on everything, or you are going to hell.
Others—equally extreme—argue, in effect, that "truth" isn't primary at all; relationships are, and therefore no proposition or point of truth is ever worth arguing about with another professing Christian. The latter position is gaining adherents at a frightening pace.
Does the Bible recognize a valid distinction between fundamental and secondary doctrines? How would you refute someone who insisted that all truth is of equal import? How do you answer those who claim no truth is worth arguing over? Could you make a biblical case for a hierarchy of truths, or for recognizing a distinction between core doctrines and peripheral ones? If so, how do you tell the difference? Do you have biblical guidelines for that? What if we disagree on whether a particular doctrine is essential or secondary? How is that question to be settled?
Those are questions which in my opinion have not been pondered seriously enough by contemporary evangelicals. You have to go back a couple of centuries to find writers who wrestled with such concerns in any depth. Volume 1 of Francis Turretin's Elenctic Theology includes a section discussing this subject (starting on page 49). Herman Witsius also deals with it near the beginning of vol. 1 of his two-volume work titled The Apostles' Creed.
It seems to me that the distinction between primary and secondary doctrines is implicit rather than explicit in Scripture. But I think the distinction is still very clear. Here, briefly, are five biblical arguments in favor of making some kind of distinction between primary and secondary doctrines:
- Jesus Himself suggested that some errors are gnats and some are camels (Matt. 23:24-25). And He stated that some matters of the law are "weightier" than others (v. 23). Think about it; such distinctions could not be made if every point of truth were essential.
- Paul likewise speaks of truths that are "of first importance" (1 Cor. 15:3)—clearly indicating that there is a hierarchy of doctrinal significance.
- Certain issues are plainly identified by Scripture as fundamental or essential doctrines. These include:
- doctrines that Scripture makes essential to saving faith (e.g., justification by faith—Rom. 4:4-5; knowledge of the true God—Jn. 17:3; the bodily resurrection—1 Cor. 15:4; and several others).
- doctrines that Scripture forbids us to deny under threat of condemnation (e.g., 1 Jn. 1:6, 8, 10; 1 Cor. 16:22; 1 Jn. 4:2-3).
Since these doctrines are explicitly said to make a difference between heaven and hell while others (the "gnats" Jesus spoke of) are not assigned that level of importance, a distinction between fundamental and secondary truths is clearly implied. - doctrines that Scripture makes essential to saving faith (e.g., justification by faith—Rom. 4:4-5; knowledge of the true God—Jn. 17:3; the bodily resurrection—1 Cor. 15:4; and several others).
- Paul distinguished between the foundation and that which is built on the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11-13). The foundation is established in Christ, and "no other foundation" may be laid. Paul suggests, however, that the edifice itself will be built with some wood, hay, and stubble. Again, this seems to suggest that while there is no tolerance whatsoever for error in the foundation, some of the individual building-blocks, though important, are not of the same fundamental importance.
- The principle Paul sets forth in Roman 14 also has serious implications for this question. There were some differences of opinion in the Roman church which Paul declined to make into hard-and-fast matters of truth vs. heresy. In Romans 14:5, he writes, "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." That clearly allows a measure of tolerance for two differing opinions on what is undeniably a point of doctrine.
As an apostle, Paul could simply have handed down a ruling that would have settled the controversy. In fact, elsewhere he did give clear instructions that speaks to the very doctrine under debate in Romans 14 (cf. Col. 2:16-17). Yet in writing to the Romans, he was more interested in teaching them the principle of tolerance for differing views on matters of less-then-fundamental importance. Surely this is something we should weigh very heavily before we make any point of truth a matter over which we break fellowship.
One thing I would like to say, since I am sometimes cast in the role of someone who attacks heresy: I'm as eager to see evangelical unity as I am to attack ecumenical compromise. But in order to keep the two straight, it is crucial to have clear biblical reasons for treating various doctrines as either fundamental or secondary. I've given a considerable amount of thought to these issues in recent years, but I'm interested in feedback from readers of my blog. Anyone know of resources where these issues are discussed in depth?
See also:
49 comments:
I think you did a wonderful job on this post, Phil. At the outset, I wondered if you had read Campi's blogpost of a few days ago. I think scripture shows several areas where a pecking order is 'in order'(Romans 14? ). Thanks for the thoughts!
I think an excellent case for the existance of primary and secondary doctrines can be made from structures I've noticed in Torah; but then I think everything can be traced back to Torah one way or another. :)
To approach this topic on a philosophical level is one thing, and a good thing, but to make it practical is very difficult.
Members of a particular church disagree about what is primary and what is secondary.
Different denominations disagree on what is primary and what is secondary.
Different "non-denominational" entities disagree on what is primary and what is secondary.
In a practical way, how do we arrive at what is REALLY primary?
Some of my church members, on issiues I see as important, have any said things like, "I know the Bible says..., but..."
I don't know how to deal with that.
Any ideas?
Phil,
I don't have a resource (off the top of my head) for you on this, other than the Scriptures. It certainly is a worthwhile topic however, and I look forward to seeing suggestions by the readers as well.
This is something that holds my interest as well, since I seem to come across more and more Christians who leave out of the gospel, what I have always believed to be without question, fundamental TO the gospel.
SDG - Carla
I am sure you realize this is the topic I have been talking about at my blog almost since its inception.
That Jesus mentioned a
"first and greatest commandment" and " a second like it" and that "all the law and prophets depend on these" seems to make this point either VERY implicit or perhaps Jesus' statement crosses over into the explicit realm.
To Joe-- you are correct that adjudicating between competing "essentials" and "non-essentials" perspectives can sometimes be difficult. I have listened while orthodox Christian in Charlottesville have debated sexuality issues, both sides convinced of the high authority of Scripture and yet one party saying "This is essential and worthy of leaving a church" and the other party saying, "No where in Scripture or the creeds is one's position on sexuality elevated to an essential of the faith. You have no permission to leave your church."
I don't have a direct answer for your question, but an indirect answer is: this is what we do in the Church, until Jesus comes back. We search the Scriptures, we reason together, we love, we pray, we study some more.
Jesus' own words in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5), support that there is at least and apparent hierarchy of law. Jesus said: "19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven . . ."
By the way, at the time, it was argued that the following was the least of the commandments:
“If you come across a bird's nest in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs and the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young." Deut. 22:6.
However, this doesn't really address the question as to what is "essential" and "non-essential." I think that has to be explained in a connect-the-dots way, much in the same way the imputed righteousness of Christ or the Trinity is explained. Neither are explicitly spoken of, yet are accepted by many (although in dwindling numbers). Romans 8 seems to be a good starting point.
Maybe we can convince Piper to write a book on it. :-)
Sort of....
Critical Issues Commentary by Pastor Bob DeWaay of Twin Cities Fellowship.
I don't know if he address's every issue but there's quite a few.
Cheers
Phil,
You might want to give this link a try.
Before the proliferation of links gets out of hand, let me explain again:
I'm not looking for guidelines on how to tell truth from error.
I'm not looking for lists of "fundamentals."
I am looking for writers who actually grapple with the biblical basis for making a distinction between primary and secondary issues.
The question on the table is not "How do we determine whether the doctrine of eternal punishment is true or false," but "How do we determine the relative seriousness of being wrong on an issue like this?" and, "How do we know whether someone can be in error on this issue and still be deemed an authentic Christian?" How much and what kind of error can we tolerate within the fellowship of faith before the principle of 2 John 10-11 kicks in?
Again, I'm looking for solid, careful biblical answers, arguments rooted in church history, ancient creeds, denominnational traditions, or one guy's opinion about what's fundamental and what's not.
BTW, I didn't mean by that last comment that none of the links given have been helpful. Some have. Thanks to those who have posted them.
But I'm asking to be pointed to specific places where the specific issue I have raised is being discussed specifically.
Wow, the handling (or mishandling)of this very issue of primary and secondary issues is one of my greatest concerns as I interact with folks who I would consider "of MacArthur." I must admit I'm a bit amazed that Phil writes about this, as my exprience has been that almost every time I enter into conversations about primary and secondary matters with these folks, everything seems to end up in the primary pile, and the resulting attitude is that true evangelical unity is virtually unattainable.
Maybe an example would help clarify. I don't think the role of women in the church, although important for us to learn from Scripture, rates as high as the doctrine of salvation by faith alone in Christ. Or the doctrine of the trinity. Or the deity of Christ. But I often come across individuals who want to fight tooth and nail over the first issue just as much as the last three. It's not that I don't have strong opinions about what the Bible teaches about women's roles, but I just can't put that issue in the same category as the others as a "fellowship breaker."
Does my church have female elders? No. Can I fellowship with a solid evangelical presbyterian church that does? Yes. But if a group teaches salvation through works, unitarianism, or that Jesus is not God, then I can't bring myself to fellowship with them.
Right. Thanks, Sled Dog. Warm and wonderful sentiments, as usual.
Now that you've got that off your chest, have you got any biblical insight you'd like to share with us on the issue (as opposed to this very enlightening information about how you feel about things)?
Ephraim, you've READ "most, if not all of [Phil's] books"?!!
I mean, like, WOW! Because I have seen his library, and that's a lot of reading.
Does Phil loan you his books? Because the one time I tried to borrow a book from him, his secretary wanted me to sign for it.
Daniel B. Wallace makes some important observations about cardinal truths and the inner witness of the Spirit here.
A sneak peek at a relevant chapter in a forthcoming Zondervan title can be found here.
Biblically, ALL believers are called to some measure of unity. Jesus prayed for it (John 17:20-23). Paul encouraged it (Ephesians 2:2). In my pursuit of truth, I can't escape the fact that Jesus wants his church unified. But it seems that many believers spend more time trying to figure out how they are divided.
As with so many things in the Christian life, a tension exists. And people tend to fall on one side of that tension or another. They either become driven by legalism or liberty. They either try to figure everything out, or they stop trying to figure anything out. I love the description of Jesus (in John 1:14) as being full of grace AND truth. He knew how to perfectly balance out the tension, and revealed it in His life.
The pharisees learned that as much as they thought they had things worked out theologically, Jesus came along and destroyed most of their conclusions. Jesus flipped them out when he and His disciple's plucked wheat on the Sabbath, and then He turned around and set them straight on the whole matter. They thought they were right, but they were dead wrong.
I'm fearful that when we stand before the Lord, and we show him the labor of our hands as 21st century American believers, He is going to look at us and say, "That's it? You just argued about stuff?"
Sorry, Phil, I didn't answer your question. It's obviously not an easy question to answer!
I have to first say, I do not know of a book that addresses the issue you bring to the table and I spend a lot of time in bookstores, and online looking at books.
That being said, if such a book(s) exists, unless you agreed with it 100%, wouldn't you be left with the same quandary? Would you then need a book to tell you whether the book you are reading is right about primary issues, and the only issues that are wrong are secondary issues? I am not trying to be facetious, but isn't what you are asking about really the "ultimate issue?" Who's right and who's wrong?
This reminds me of the Supreme Court's treatment of obscenity cases. There is no set standard, they simply say, "We'll know it when we see it."
Isn't it the same here? We meet someone, or deal with someone, or some ministry, and we assess their doctrinal position. If there are areas of which they are not aligned with our own, don't we just have to make a case-by-case determination?
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see what you find out of this, and I will be here clicking every link. But, I fear that this is akin to Ishmael's White Whale.....
Sir Blogalot says: "Doesn't this whole thread militate against the claim that these essentials and non-essentials are 'common sense'?"
Well, yeah, that was my whole point. Unfortunately, support for the dichotomy between primary and secondary truths has been pretty much left in the realm of common sense since the time of Herman Witsus. With the decline of any consensus on what "common sense" tells us, we need to take a new look at the issue, and there needs to be a clear understanding of what Scripture says about it.
That's why I'm not particularly interested in hearing people's personal feelings about it.
Sled Dog says: "I'm fearful that when we stand before the Lord, and we show him the labor of our hands as 21st century American believers, He is going to look at us and say, 'That's it? You just argued about stuff?'"
I hear you. But I'm also fearful that the bulk of 21st-century American believers are even more likely to hear Him say, "You didn't care enough about truth to refute the flood of lies and counterfeits? You listened to the worldlings who claimed it's 'unloving' to confront error? Didn't I give you a better example to follow; and didn't I even command you to contend earnestly for the faith?"
Perhaps Jude provides a starting poiont for the discussion. He wrote that we are to contend FOR THE FAITH that was once for all entrusted to the saints. What is the FAITH we are to contend for? I believe that we are to firmly fight against anything that would weaken the message of God's salvation through Christ. That is the essence of the FAITH.
If someone teaches works rather than faith through grace, the FAITH is threatened (hence Paul's near hysterical response to the Judiazers in the Galatian church). But the discussion of whether about the role of women in the church does not threaten the GOSPEL. I can be saved even if the latter is taught, but I can't be redeemed by the doctrine of the former.
Curse you blogger! No editing capabililties. Omit from the 2nd paragraph: "of whether".
I feel:-) like the best place to look for the kinds of answers you want are found in the early church creeds.
I've never posted a comment to a blog before, but here goes...
When it comes to the truths revealed in Scripture, there are two metrics that may interact.
1) Importance: Some truths are more important or vital than other truths are. (This is the subject matter of the current blog topic.)
2) Clarity: Some truths are more clearly revealed than other truths are. (Can a truth be clearly, yet implicitly, revealed?)
From these metrics a couple of questions follow:
1) Is there a correlation between these two metrics? Are the most important or vital truths also the truths that are revealed with the greatest clarity? Or is there generally little correlation between these two metrics?
2) What is the greatest cause of disagreement - A) less important or vital truths that are incorrectly classified as more important or vital truths, or B) truths, whatever their level of importance, that are revealed with lesser clarity in Scripture?
From a slightly different perspective, assume a truth that is universally agreed to be of relatively little importance. Assume also that this truth is universally agreed to be clearly revealed in Scripture. Would acting and/or believing contrary to such a truth place a person in the position of lacking proper respect for Scripture? (Growing up, if my dad desired that we, his kids, wear green on St. Patrick's Day, and he made this desire clearly known. Even if this was a relatively unimportant item for my dad, we would have been guilty of disrespecting our dad had we not worn green on St. Patrick's Day.)
SledDog says... "The pharisees learned that as much as they thought they had things worked out theologically, Jesus came along and destroyed most of their conclusions. Jesus flipped them out when he and His disciple's plucked wheat on the Sabbath, and then He turned around and set them straight on the whole matter. They thought they were right, but they were dead wrong."
And Christ was Gracious enough to show them their error. The problem wasn't that they searched out theological answers, it's that they were wrong and were using it for personal gain. The issue is the heart, THEY WEREN'T EVEN SAVED! (Well, some of them anyways).
Phil, it's a good question, and we would all agree that whenever these ideas (or truths) are presented as what saves (and not being Christ alone and His finished work on the Cross) is where the problem lies.
I think your post makes the point exactly (and I half suspect you missed yourself making it). You are (quite rightly) wanting to see evangelical unity. That is to say, unity in the gospel. Paul's own priority was the gospel; I would go to Galatians 1:6-9 and Philippians 1:15-18, which I think make this abundantly clear.
If it's essential to the gospel, then we make a stand and will say that people disagreeing with us cannot be saved. If it isn't, we can disagree, charitably and as Christian brothers and sisters.
So, now all you have to do is answer the small question of "what is the gospel?" I await your own solution to this minor problem with interest. : )
Phil Walker,
To whom are you directing your comment?
And to your comment, I say "here, here!"
JerryW
I certainly was not ignoring the context of John 17. Unity must have an object...not simply to be amicable (which I did not call for). Jesus prayed that His followers be sanctified in the truth and be completely unified. We have to deal with both, not one at the expense of the other.
As far as John 14, I believe that the statement does reveal an incredible balance that God could somehow show us grace, when the truth is we aren't worthy of His love. And Christ demonstrated that balance throughout His entire earthly ministry.
Makes me think that the answer to Phil's original question might be: Be more like Jesus!
Phil writes: “With the decline of any consensus on what "common sense" tells us, we need to take a new look at the issue, and there needs to be a clear understanding of what Scripture says about it.
No consensus on what common sense tells us? Phil, are you sure you are not among the Evangelical Left after all? Should you rename your blog, Pomomaniac instead?
Just kidding of course – your last line clarifies the point you are making ( there needs to be a clear understanding of what Scripture says about it ). However, I think we all recognize that examining what the Scripture says will not answer all of the questions that are being asked (if they did we would not still be talking about this). Bringing biblical principles to bear is the call of the day, but of course this is subjective and will not be able to avoid, as you say, hearing people's personal feelings about it .
See what I mean about the death of "common sense"?
There's unity and understanding of these issues among regenerate Christians. In the invisible Church of which Christ is King.
The person who stated that the creeds (and I would add the Reformation confessions) fill this need is on to something.
Nice to see you reference Turretin and Witsius. Always keep in mind: Covenant Theology is not the servant of infant baptism. Don't allow the high church paedo types push this line. Covenent Theology is the truth (read Witsius' major work, Economy of the Covenants).
Creeds, by their very nature, cannot explore and analyze sufficiently the Biblical grounds for any doctrine (much less compare the relative importance of doctrines).
They sift doctrine by weight and show this just simply by what they leave out as not weighty enough to include.
Tereo-Kensai,
I appreciate your zeal for Sola Scriptura, but for me to say, " examining what the Scripture says will not answer ALL of the questions that are being asked," does not constitute a rejection of the Reformation doctrine nor does it impinge upon my 5-point Calvinism. I am simply acknowledging that there are some questions that the Bible does not explicitly explain.
I happen to agree with “Temple, War, and Cities” that the creeds are an excellent place to start.
SUGGESTION: Phil, will you schedule a “Pyromaniac Cruise” (you know, like the “Grace to You Cruise” to Alaska) so we all can get together some time? Thanks a million (my favorite Mayhew phrase).
Tereo-Kensai is correct; creeds are not what I'm looking for, and I expressly said so.
Byt the way, lest there be any question about this—I accept all the major ecumenical creeds without any reservation. But I reject the notion that the ecumenical creeds (Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, Chalcedon, etc.) are a sufficient list of everything that is truly fundamental.
A moment's reflection ought to reveal why (from a Protestant perspective, anyway) the creeds don't even come close to furnishing an answer to the question I have raised. After all, none of the central issues under debate between Rome and the Reformers were settled by the early creeds.
If you start with the assumption that patristic creeds define everything that's truly fundamental, you'd have to argue that the Reformation was a mistake, because it split the church over secondary matters. That's one of the very accusations the Catholic Church made against the Reformers in the 16th century. Protestants have universally rejected that idea for 500 years. Good Protestants still reject it.
To give just one example: the doctrine of justification by faith is not dealt with in any of the ancient creeds. Yet Galatians 1 clearly makes it a fundamental issue.
By the way, it begs the question to say "if it's essential to the gospel, then its' essential truth." The question is about how to determine biblically what is essential—including what's essential to the gospel.
This is not an easy question. Just because a doctrine is related to the gospel—or even central to the gospel—does not mean that every aspect of that truth is essential.
The nature of the atonement is a classic example. What's more essential to the gospel than the atonement? Yet no one but the darkest hyper-calvinist would say that your understanding of the extent of the atonement has to be perfect before you can be embraced as a Christian.
On the other hand, I would be inclined to suspicion about someone who knowingly and deliberately rejects the vicarious, penal, and propitiatory aspects of the atonement. It seems to me someone who teaches that Christ's work on the cross was only exemplary and who flatly denies that it was substitutionary or propitiatory is no true Christian. I believe I could support that conclusion from Scripture.
But, once more, I'm looking for serious resources from serious writers who have thought carefully through these things, not a free-for-all airing of off-the-cuff opinions. I appreciate those who have suggested good resources.
Incidentally, a "Pyromaniac cruise" is a patently bad idea. Don't you remember what kinds of things happen when I travel?
How ironic...when I took my wife out for lunch today (excellent huevos rancheros I might say.) I noticed that the new pastor from the local presby church was having lunch with his assoc pastor. My mind flashed to the discussion on this thread, and for a split second I wondered, hmmm, how should I respond to this paedo-baptizer? Obviously I extended the right hand of fellowship to this man who preaches the full gospel of Christ. I may not agree with every doctrine of his church, but I can glory in the fact that people are finding salvation because of the Gospel is preached.
Now, I know this still isn't answering your question, Phil. I agree with you about the creeds. When people ask me my creed I tell them it's Genesis thru Revelation.
But here's my question for you, Phil. Can you expand on your comments about how paedo-baptism effects and influences primary doctrines. I've got my views, but just wanted to hear your case...
The context of my own remarks, as I formulated it, was not "creeds" alone but confessions.
Suggesting anyone was saying the little Apostles' Creed covers all central doctrine is not playing fair.
For somebody requesting help, in a rather informal environment, you're awfully prickly and demanding.
You asked a question that may just basically require a summation of historical, biblical, and systematic theology. Afterall, the process of biblically discerning or identifying principle doctrine (and by default sifting out or identifying secondary or non-principle doctrine) involves basically everything that goes into the process that produces confessions and STs and summation works such as Institutes of the Christian Religion, etc.
Something ongoing and interesting and seldom remarked on in the history of the church era is the fact that so few branch/denominations/schools of theology (however you want to define it) produce respected systematic theologies (including grudgingly respected). It's actually just the Reformed, Calvinists (whether Baptist, Reformed, Presbyterian, or Congregationalist) who produce such STs.
What makes Calvinist theologians different from other schools and denominations and branches and what not? Valuation for the authority of Scripture.
This subject touches on your request and the general subject of your post.
Sled Dog says: "here's my question for you, Phil. Can you expand on your comments about how paedo-baptism effects and influences primary doctrines[?]"
When did I ever say I think paedobaptism "effects and influences primary doctrines"? I don't think it necessarily does. (Baptismal regeneration is whole a different matter, BTW.) As a matter of fact, I have many close friends who are paedobaptists, and I make it a point never to pick fights with them over the issue (well, at least not in earnest; I might needle them from time to time) precisely because I don't believe it's a primary matter.
Certain approaches to sacramentalism disturb me greatly. These are epitomized by the Auburn Avenue theology and most of its cousins, ranging from the New Perspective on Paul to the odd varieties of pretentious pseudocatholic drivel floating around among some Protestants these days. (I'm thinking of the stuff regularly found on the "Communio Sanctorum" blog—the Artists formerly known as "Reformed Catholicism.") But that particular type of sacramentalism disturbs me because of the way it undermines the clarity of the doctrine of justification by faith.
By contrast, paedobaptism per se isn't something I really want to spend time fighting about.
Likewise, you'll find, I deliberately stay out of most arguments over eschatological schemes. I do think there are some essential truths pertaining to future things (chiefly, the future, literal, bodily return of Christ), but I don't think any essential truth is at stake in most of the escatological debates theological students love to hammer each other with. So I steer clear of virtually all those debates, and I refuse to allow anyone's opinions on the timing of specific future events to become an impediment to my Christian fellowship.
(BTW, I wouldn't include most varieties of "full preterism" in the list of escatological controversies that bypass primary truths, because it seems to me extreme preterism does involve a denial of the bodily return of Christ, and in the worst cases, some full preterists have seemed even to explain away the significance of the bodily resurrection of Christ. But I'm just stating that opinion for the record, not opening this comment thread for a debate on eschatology. So be forewarned; if you try to start a debate here about any eschatological issue from preterism to the timing of the rapture, your comments will be unceremoniously deleted because they are officially off topic. I'm allowed to veer off-topic on my blog. No one else is.)
To a certain degree, I think some of the more picayune debates over worship and music styles aren't really worth the amount of ink that has been spilt over them. However, I do believe the majority of the popular fads in so-called "contemporary worship" violate crucial New Testament principles. Chiefly, I think man-centeredness and worldliness in worship are the contemporary equivalent of the groves and idols that God condemned in OT worship. Therefore (as you know from things I have posted), I'm prepared to do battle with the miscreants who peddle those innovations.
But I acknowledge that there's ultimately more subjectivity than I am comfortable with in the reasons I might assign differing levels of importance to this or that doctrine in my hierarchy. If it's possible outline additional objective, biblical principles besides the ones I listed in my original post, I'd like to develop my views a little more. That's why I started this thread.
For the record, I do think it's positively sinful to make issues we admit are secondary—such as paedobaptism and eschatology—the first things we want to know about someone's theology, as if we were looking for argument-fodder. To a lesser degree, the same thing is true about Calvinism. I do think Calvinism touches on issues that are worth debating, and I don't mind a vigorous, gloves-off fight with a rabid free-willer, if the free-willer picks the fight. But it embarrasses me when fellow Calvinists seem to walk around wearing their Calvinism on their sleeve like they are spoiling for a fight, acting as if there's only one subject that really matters in all of theology.
Now I'm way off topic again, but back to your original question, I don't know where you ever got the notion I think differences over paedobaptism are worth breaking fellowship over. For the record, I don't. I have nothing but compassion and patience for my poor, benighted paedo friends. I even buy them lunch sometimes.
Temple, war, and cities (you wouldn't be the latest incarnation of "Carolyn Trace," would you?) says: You asked a question that may just basically require a summation of historical, biblical, and systematic theology.
No, I didn't. I asked for help locating serious resources where brighter minds than mine have dealt with these issues from Scripture.
I'm not trying to be "prickly," I'm just trying not to let the thread veer off into an argument about how various people who post in my comments section "feel" about it.
Maybe next week I'll invite everyone to tell us how they feel. This week, my question was deliberately more specific than that. I'm just trying to keep it on track.
PHIL
I was simply referring to your quote:
"Most doctrines, even those that are inessential have important implications, the effects which stretch into or influence more "essential" doctrines. The issue of Paedo baptism might be described this way."
Aren't you saying here that although doctrines may be inessential, they still may have some impact upon more primary, essential doctrines? And if so, how does Paedo baptism do so? Since you used Paedo baptism as your example, I just wanted you to expand on your reasoning.
It was a simple question! Really! I have no stake in your response one way or another. I just desired you to elaborate on your proposition.
Sled Dog: That's not my quote. Someone else said that. Check the source again.
Ok, Now I understand what you are looking for in this post :) At first I thought you wanted someone's scripture and thoughts on this, but you want someone's complete research and sermon/paper on it.
I know Piper has done some sermons on this and I have found a couple (and I'm sure there's more)...
Contend for the Faith
Training the next generation of evangelical pastors and missionaries - Piper states that all the secondaries become sustained by God Exalting motives if our focus is wholy on God.
Sled Dog: Sorry, I forgot to put that in. I meant Phil Johnson's main blog post.
Hey,
Sorry about the creed thing. Didn't mean to cause a stir.
I meant it as a joke.
I did think about this during a sleepless night and when I finally did get to sleep, couldn't get up in time to check it out, but does David Wells address any of this in his book, 'No Place For Truth'?
Great Questions! I tried to add to the dicussio a bit here
Yes you are asking for a summation of historical, biblical, and systematic theology (and the process that contributes to the drawing up of confessions, STs, and summation works like Calvin's Institutes) because the person who writes the scholarly and serious book you're looking for would be doing just that to satisfy request as you delineate it.
To use a computer analogy: you're asking for a reference to the kind of program that works in the background and is a part of the actual operating system of a personal computer, yet you are thinking you're asking for something that is more the equivalent of a program you download and use yourself (like your graphics programs).
There's no other way to sift biblical doctrine by weight other than to go to Scripture and to have the discernment that comes from the Spirit of Truth guiding you. There's no shortcuts. This is why I brought up Reformed/Calvinst systematic theologies and why they are the adult industry standard for seriousness: valuation for the authority of Scripture. Look into the process that has resulted in the most time-vetted confessions and STs and summation type works of theology. That is the process at work, and the criteria for sifting is nothing less than engaging Scripture and having the real discernment that allows one to know the truth.
Basically, from my somewhat outsider point-of-view, I immediately saw that most mischief along the lines of division over secondary issues occured in matters of ecclesiology and sacraments. Other than that they occurs in matters more philosophical than doctrinal. For instance assuming what God hasn't revealed, such as is done in much of the Calvinst/Arminian debate. (I'm a Calvinist, for the record.) Or parsing things too dogmatically like "did I move towards God, or did God make me move toward Him?" where Scripture gives warrant for reconciliation of both.
If it's clear in the Bible (like the example people have brought up of women pastors) then it's worth fighting over. If it's not clear (such as issues of church polity or issues regarding sacraments) then common-sense says it's not primary. If Scripture leaves something unclear then so be it.
Unfortunately man wants power and man's main hold on power in things religious and Christian is via matters of ecclesiology and sacraments.
So even though they (ecclesiology, sacraments) are the main areas where secondary issues are made into primary ones to the degree of dividing people man still insists on making them primary because it gives man power.
So you're not fighting a battle that involves educating willing students, you're fighting a battle against the 'old man' in human beings and human nature that wants worldly power in God's domain.
Phil and tereo-kensai,
My bad! Made the mistake of co-mingling posts. Reading through I must have just blended Phil and tereo's comments. Probably because I'm not a night person, and also because some posters use profile photos and some don't. But mainly cause I was careless!
Excellent post. I wish I had some answers, so I'm anxious to see what your esteemed readers come up with. I recently had a falling out with my oldest friend who has drifted into charismatic and apostolic teaching. While we have maintained the friendship, he was deeply offended when I told him that I would not be able to host an event at my house where he was seeking to raise funds to start his new church. I told him that our differences were significant enough that I couldn't endorse his new ministry. That made me wonder how I make these types of decisions. I don't have any hard and fast rules, so I'm often going on what "feels" right. That's a recipe for disaster.
He pointed out to me that it was ironic that I would take such a hard line on endorsing his ministry when I (a biblical sovereigntist) belong to an Arminian church that doesn't practice church discipline and allows women to teach adult Sunday School classes. He might have a point.
First, because the Calvinists are not the only group with systematic theologies among their works. You may not be familiar with the vast literature of other denominations, but there are Pentacostal (and even Charismatic) systematic theologies, Church of Christ and Lutheran systematic theologies, Anglican/Episcopalian and Methodist and Arminian Baptist systematic theologies,
My point (which was obvious) was not that only Calvinists produce systematic theologies but that only Calvinist/Reformed (whether Baptist, Reformed, Congregationalist, Presbyterian) STs are taken seriously by people who have as a starting point a real valuation for the authority of Scripture. You or anyone else can argue against that, but you'd be wrong, sorry to break the news...
And of course Calvinists don't agree on everything. John Owen, the Calvin of England, didn't agree with Calvin. Bunyan, as true a Calvinist as ever lived, was a Baptist. But the differences were in areas that the Bible is not clear on (despite what you say, tereo).
No, the Bible manifestly is not dogmatic and certain on matters of church polity and matters involving the sacraments. If you don't know that then you just havn't seen it for yourself. Scripture gives warrant to different kinds of assembly and leadership and worship. In the matter of the sacraments, Scripture gives warrant to know that baptismal regeneration is a false teaching. Beyond that, mode of baptism (etc., etc.) is not stated in the Word of God in a clear, direct way, therefore they are not issues to divide over. Bunyan had this down way back when, but men want power, and power is gained in the church via various abuses of clericalism and sacramentalism, so...man will have his way.
OK, tereo. That's your story, and you're sticking with it!
Post a Comment