In extreme fundamentalism, every doctrine is a hill to die on. Music (worship), dress, Bible versions (KJVO), personal separation (i.e. no movie attendance, alcohol, tobacco, gambling), believer’s baptism, pre-tribulational rapture — all of these are lined up right next to the Trinity, justification by grace through faith alone, inspiration, inerrancy, the virgin birth, etc. In short, every doctrine is essential, no doctrines are merely secondary. If God says it, I believe it, and that settles it!
Such a die hard commitment to truth is commendable. We certainly shouldn’t pick and choose between what parts of the Bible we should believe and those we shouldn’t! And in today’s relativistic age, when so many prize ecumenism and unity far above truth, this attitude is noble.
But let me ask an important question: “Doesn’t elevating every doctrinal position to the status of essential make the Gospel just another doctrine?”
The Gospel is just another position we stake out: one more hill to die on. When our time is spent defending the King James Bible or high dress standards, and when we start putting “KJB 1611” and “old-fashioned” on our church signs, we are acting as if these positions matter to us as much as, if not more so than the Gospel.
What we choose to separate over, defines us — whether we admit it or not. And for many well-intentioned fundamentalists, what distinguishes them are not matters “of first importance” (1 Cor. 15:3).
The Gospel should be big enough to unite over. It is a towering peak, far more important than one’s eschatological or ecclesiastic positions, and certainly bigger than one’s view of Bible translations and dress standards.
Since the Gospel is so important, we should be thrilled to find someone who believes as we do on the Gospel. If the Gospel matters so much, then it should matter much to us if someone agrees with us on the Gospel, other differences notwithstanding. I explained this point in these words in an earlier post:
Rather than prizing the actual unity we have as fellow believer-partakers in our Divine Lord Jesus Christ’s glorious provision for our sins as an altogether adequate basis for a mutual fellowship and unity which welcomes each other in spite of our differing positions on comparatively minor points, the minor points [upon which we disagree] define us as we esteem them of greater importance than our commonality in the Gospel. Our own applications of separation, views on baptism, and beliefs about the finer points of eschatology and ecclesiology and other doctrines become stumblingblocks to the real unity of the faith the One True Gospel calls us to, and the world is robbed of a clear witness to the Oneness of Christ and the Father, and of Christ and His Church, and ultimately God is denied a unified voice that glorifies His name (Eph. 4:3,13, Jn. 17:20-21, Rom. 15:5-7).
I’m not claiming we shouldn’t stand for secondary doctrines. They are important. But they are not what the kingdom of God is all about (Rom. 14:17-20). In all our defense of truth, let us make sure we are not belittling the place of the Gospel in our system of thought. Make sure the Gospel towers above your horizon as your defining reality and the focus of your faith and of your life.
I would like to invite you to post your reply to an open question to all believers, on my blog:
http://potomac9499.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/an-open-question-to-all-believers/
I am asking in all sincerity, because I do actually want to understand differing view points, and since you seem quite certain of your faith, I feel your input would be relevant.
Bob,
Your post made me think about what Alistair Begg says, “The main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things.”
It does strike me that not all things are so plain, therefore everything can’t be a main.
In other words, Calvin and Luther both said that the hinge for all of Christendom was the doctrine of justification by faith alone. They both thought differently about many things but they both agreed sola fide was the big hill to die on. The curious thing though when I was in fundamentalism, KVVonlyism was preached with more fervor then anything else, save maybe just one topic…alcohol. The close 2nds were clothes (no pants for women) and movies. The scary thing to me, however, is that none of these things are vital Christian doctrine. They are practice, and we may need to make a distinction between doctrine and practice. Obviously there is always doctrine behind the practice…but the emphasis in my fundamental life was practice. That’s why I never heard a sermon, or the word “justification” until I came over to the Reformation. But I can’t tell you how many sermons I have heard against movies, drinkin and even one against wearing “pink” polo shirts. Amazen…
Gage Browning
Post Tenebras Lux
I went out from among them because I was not one of them. I was raised in a fundamentalist church whose pastor did agree with all the typical fundamental baptist hobby-horses, but he also knew how to love, and would’ve never affirmed the kind of behavior your drive-by commenters have exhibited.
Then in my teen years I was exposed to a cross-section of evangelicalism when I got a job at a Christian bookstore. The same one Gage and his dad and best friend’s brother worked at at the same time, though back then we’d never met. Oh yeah, the boss over all of us happened to be Gage’s best friend’s father-in-law-to-be’s brother, Jack! But I digress. 🙂
Having my horizon expanded in such a way had the kind of effect that President Bush describes about the oppressed nations of the middle east getting a taste of freedom. He says they’ll never be satisfied with tyranny again. I can relate to that sentiment. Speaking of tyranny, I recall being told repeatedly in my fundamentalist past that one day “the world” would equate Christian fundy’s with Muslim fundy’s. Reading comments like the trio you highlighted may help explain why this became a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Anyway, I may not have arrived at the destination I’d prefer, but I can at least thank God for the progress that has been made. And I thank him for delivering me from being surrounded by that brand of “Christianity.”
Reformata, Semper Reformanda
Correction: “Gage’s best friend’s brother’s father-in-law-to-be’s brother, Jack”
I’m sure that clears things up for you.
I know I feel better.
🙂
An excellent reminder.
John, you’re connecting this post with my last one about those comments. And they are related. Those comments made me think of this point.
Thanks guys for your thoughts. Gage, we should ask you about your closet — any pink polos?? If there are…..
Rodibidably has an interesting post. I answered his question, maybe some of you could check it out if you have some time.
One more thought. I love that Alistair Begg quote, Gage. It really is that simple. What Scripture is very plain and clear about, ought to be what we hold to the most dogmatically. And the main things are the abundantly plain.
fundy,
I just wanted to thank you for your response on my blog, and your comment here for others to check it out. While we may not see eye to eye, I enjoy the debate, since it gives me a chance to see a view from somebody else’s point of view.
While I doubt either of us will change the other’s mind, being able to have the discussion is important if the world is to continue in relative harmony.
Glad to oblige. Understanding other’s views is important. Charity and fairness are too.
Sorry, guess I had them both open at the time and commented on the wrong one.
No problem John. And by the way, I don’t think I’m going to get the friend’s friend’s brother’s fiance’s dad’s brother thing right. Connections like that only happen in the South, right? 😉
Bob,
The little things are about the gospel. We are God’s love gift to His Son (John 10:29; etc.) for the purpose of glorifying Him. We were saved to worship Him.
You read through the Bible and it is one little thing after another. Lot’s wife turned around. Cain brought vegetables. The sons of God married the daughters of men. Eli restrained them not. Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire. Uzzah touched the ark. Samson ate the honey from the dead lion. I can keep going.
And we separate over what? Unrepentant sin. Is sin disobedience to a list of essentials? Or is it more than that?
I’ve found that everyone is concerned about little things as they apply to themselves. We don’t like it when we order at a restaurant and one thing is left out. We make sure we get what we ordered, every item. We expect God, however, to be much more lenient. Does that relate to the gospel?
When we don’t take these things seriously, we don’t take God seriously, and that’s what the gospel is about.
The Gospel certainly impacts how we view other things and impacts our lifestyle. But someone can disagree or have it wrong on a secondary issue and still have the Gospel right. And the Gospel isn’t about what we do, its what’s been done for us. We depend and trust in the Gospel, and really we’re trusting in and treasuring Christ.
If someone is correct on the Gospel then they are saved. If someone is not then they are lost. So basically you are saying that we only seperate with lost people, because they are the only ones who could be wrong about the Gospel. Which absolutely nullifies seperation. Do you think God is pleased with you nullifying something he put in Scripture?
Also,
If he were alive today, Calvin would seperate with you because you go to a Baptist Church.
Luther would call you unsaved if you did not believe that Jesus came into your being with the bread of communion.
Zwingli might “seperate” you from your family and have you killed for being Baptized by immersion.
Your Reformed heritage knows nothing of your view of seperation.
Jesus said in John 8:31, “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed.”
Paul wrote in Colossians 1:21-23, “[Y]ou, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled . . . to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel.”
When we receive Christ, we say “yes” to all of Him, everything that He said. We can be right that salvation is by grace, but it must be the grace of God, not lasciviousness. We must believe in Jesus Christ, but it must be the Jesus Christ of the Bible, Who is Lord and God. Jesus said in Matthew 18:18, “If he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” He came not to bring peace, but a sword. God’s truth sanctifies us. It separates us. It isn’t for us to choose what is important to separate over.
You are taking this essential and non-essential doctrine out of thin air. It is neither in Scripture, and it isn’t even historical doctrine. It’s an invention by modern evangelicalism to keep fake unity.
I don’t mind being proven wrong.
“In the essentials, Unity; in the doubtful, Liberty; in all things, Charity.” Thomas A. Kempis 1380-1471
Sorry for not responding to the arguments here earlier, I’ve been kind of busy.
Notice, this post says “excessive separation”. Separation is not what I’m against. We do need to separate, but over the things and in the manner which the NT prescribes.
Most of the time, separation in the NT is over grievous error, heinous sin, flagrant rebellion, or schismatic behavior. We are to separate from those who are schismatic, and at times the excessive separators are just that.
In the same letter that Paul tells the church to “mark and avoid” those who are “contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught”, Paul also says that secondary matters such as one’s belief on Sabbath-keeping, and eating meat or drinking wine, should not divide believers (Rom. 16:17 & ch. 14-15:7). So it is patently obvious that some issues are not worth separating over, and in fact the verse which says to “mark and avoid” is specifically referring to those who cause divisions and create offenses/obstacles to sound doctrine. In Titus 3:10 a schismatic is a heretic — that’s what the word heretic means.
For an example, take my recent post on what my church believes about the end times. We do not explicitly affirm a pre-tribulation rapture position. But notice how everything we affirm is generally agreed and upheld by all evangelical Christians. These are the main (and plain) things about eschatology, which must be held. But the finer points, and other questions about exactly when and how it all unfolds, that is not as clear and is not as weighty or important. I can make a strong case for a post-tribulational rapture, and I’m sure you guys can argue well for a pre-trib one. Both of us are respecting Scripture in our various views. I am not denying immanence, no matter what the opposing views say. So how do we respond.
The extreme separatists forbid any but those who agree with them on this and other points from cooperating with them in ministry. In so doing, I believe, they are belittling the many points on which they agree — points which touch on the Gospel.
I am not saying Gospel matters are secondary. They are worth separating over. There is much that touches the Gospel and is worth separating over.
It is easy to point at Calvin and Luther and yell fowl. Yet we did not experience there age of unrest. Many Baptists in that day were lawless extremists, and they got treated that way, in spite of the exceptions. I’m not defending the treatment of Baptists, it was wrong. But our age is a different one. Luther’s views on communion were less strong than what his church ultimately adopted, at least that is what I’ve heard and understand. Luther used strong language and sometimes was too harsh in defending the truth. But I believe he did share fellowship with many who did not agree on all points with him. Same with Calvin.
The Puritans were an example historically of this position. Many of them remained in the Anglican church and suffered through Romanish extremes, yet still stood for truth. Most of them did not cut and run, as the separatists did.
John Bunyan is another historic example. He argued for non-Baptists to be welcomed to church communion, and even into the church — even though he was a Baptist.
Edwards and Wesley, Whitfield and others of that era, they shared pulpits and cooperated with one another in the work of the Gospel. They prized the Gospel.
Even in the 1800s, it was common for Baptist churches to invite paedoBaptists to preach and even share communion with them.
The extreme separationism practiced today in a some of the fundamentalist groups is actually the historically aberrant view.
Grace,
Thanks for sharing the quote by Thomas A. Kempis. I didn’t know it was he who was the source of it. Another historical example of this position.
fyi
“In things essential, unity; in doubtful, liberty; in all things, charity.”
[Lat., In necessasariis, unitas; In dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.]
Author: Thomas a Kempis
Source: Imitation of Christ (bk. I, ch. III),
(Dibdin’s translation)
hold fast…brother
Bob,
Respectfully, nothing that you said shows a historic doctrine of the essential/non-essential teaching. If I’m missing something, you are welcome to show me. Sabbath keeping wasn’t designated a “secondary matter.” The NT doesn’t teach Sabbath keeping.
Matthew 18 doesn’t say gross sins. It says “offense.” In 1 Corinthians 5, that representative list includes “covetousness.” God doesn’t hear our prayers if we haven’t reconciled with our wives. It seems like that is a fellowship issue with God.
Grace,
I would surmise a value to reading the Imitation of Christ. I think that John Newton was reading the book around the time he was converted. I don’t trace my spiritual heritage back to a Kempis any more than I do Augustine, who also wrote something nearly identical to the quote you reference, so that a Kempis likely got the quote from him, a theologian of Roman Catholicism. However, notice the quote. Anything not doubtful is essential, according to him. What is doubtful? Scripture is perspicuous, so Scripture and what it teaches isn’t doubtful. The doubtful are those things not even taught in Scripture; in other words—non-Scriptural issues. We have liberty in non-Scriptural issues. I agree!
For instance, baptism by immersion for believers only is taught in Scripture. That isn’t doubtful.
Fleshly lust isn’t doubtful.
Evil concupiscence isn’t doubtful.
Inordinate affecton isn’t doubtful.
Kent, respectfully,
None of us can “trace our spiritual heritage” back any further than than the day when God’s Spirit used whatever agent, human or otherwise, in tandem with the Word, to convict and regenerate us. What exactly do you claim to be your “spiritual heritage”, sinner?
Maybe your self-perceived spiritual pedigree has blinded you to the needs of your family, the church…not simply the local church, but all those in every place that call upon the name of the Lord. Kempis cared, do you ?
And so, to answer your question..”What is doubtful?”
It is doubtful that the Scriptures clearly teach that any and every instance of music that we would come to know as CCM is sinful.
It is doubtful that the Scriptures plainly teach that modern women wearing modest women’s pants is sinful.
It is doubtful that the Scriptures clearly teach that believers must dress up in their best clothes on Sunday to honor God.
It is doubtful that the Scriptures clearly teach that the reading/studying any other English version besides the KJV is sinful.
It is doubtful that the Scriptures clearly teach that a believer must always, without exception, give at least a tenth of thier income to the local church to stay “right with God”
It is doubtful that the Scriptures clearly teach that the local church is always and only led by ONE PASTOR.
It is doubtful that a believer must commit to a schedule of local church frequency that incudes being at every Sunday am. pm, weekday service, and all special services, in order to please God.
In necessasariis, unitas; In dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas
A good quote…wouldn’t you say?
Grace,
I agree that I’m a sinner saved by the grace of God (Eph. 2:8, 9). Although I think you know very well what I was talking about, my historical heritage does not trajectory through Roman Catholicism but spiritually through those who have solely believed and practiced the Bible independent of state churchism.
You referred to no Scriptura, so that I have no dubiis that you did not debunk anything in my comment. What you did succeed at doing, and disrespectfully to me, was to insinuate that I both am blind to the needs of and do not care for my family and my ekklesia. You took way too much libertas in doing so.
I never asked what was dubiis. Scroll up; you’ll see. Isn’t the major point of a Kempis to imitate Christ? Should not our goal be to honor Him in everything we do?
When Jesus sang in the church, would He have sung something sensual, lustful, or worldly?
Can we judge any clothes to be immodest? What is our standard for doing so? Where do we draw the line on what’s too tight, too loose, or too short? Would women be sinful if they put on a pair of the husband’s or brother’s pants? You seem to be certain about judgments you have about clothing.
Where does Scripture teach a doctrine of errancy? Is there a doctrine of verbal inerrancy in Scripture? How can we live by every Word if we don’t have every Word?
Would it be wrong for a Christian to dress in His worst possible clothes for Sunday corporate worship?
If Christians are to offer any of their income at all to God through the church, would gracious giving be more generous than the smallest proportion required for giving in the Old Testament?
Is there an office of the pastor, and if so, does he have any authority at all over a church? How much?
Is it better for a Christian to hear more exposition of Scripture or less? How do we provoke a believer to love and good works at the assembling of believers if we don’t assemble? Would we please God more by worshiping Him corporately less?
I don’t mind the Kempis quote, but it doesn’t teach that certain doctrines of Scripture are essential and others are non-essential. That isn’t historic doctrine. Isn’t that great?!?!
Kent,
I’m sure that other examples could be given to establish the historicity of the idea that there are essential and less-essential or secondary doctrines.
Again the Puritans stayed within an impure church, and tried to purify it. They pointed to certain practices and teachings as being wrong — yet they held that there was still an essential doctrinal unity that was maintained. Hence they stayed within the Anglican church.
In Scripture, the Gospel is set apart as being of first importance (1 Cor. 15). Then there are “doubtful disputations” and “foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions and strivings about the law” and “vain jangling” to use the KJV expressions. Of course there is “doctrine” and also apostolic “tradition”. These are important.
Is every assertion in the NT what is meant by “doctrine”? Or are the chief things in view? Does the NT contain concrete examples of secondary doctrines?
I’m sure it does, but that is another post. Many men of God recognize that certain doctirnal positions, while they may touch on the Gospel, do not directly impact it. And the warnings associated with certain grievous departures from truth, would not apply to differences on these less-vital areas.
Again, consider the eschatological example I used. While it is important, none of the main things are denied by any of the evangelical positions. Hence one’s opinion on this issue is less important than how one views the gospel. I admit to using some God-given logic in all of this too. But the point remains — in my opinion.
I don’t think it is a sin to be wrong on a secondary doctrine. For instance, either the Reformed position or the Baptist position on baptism is wrong. Both could potentially be wrong, but both could not be correct. However, both are held from a Scriptural mindset and with Scriptural proofs. Both are held in a desire to please and honor God. Neither position, according to the proponents of the position, denies the Gospel. Both point to personal faith as absolutely essential and both uphold the mandate that adult converts be baptized after faith, and both uphold the mandate that believers must be obedient to baptism (there can be no non-baptized believers — baptism is important).
The Fundamentalists of the 1920s held baptism and specific eschatological views to be secondary in importance to fundamental doctrines. They viewed their movement to be holding on to the historical position against the encroachment of modernism. I’ll side with their view for now. In the mean time, I should do a longer post on this issue.
I appreciate your interaction and your defending/explaining your view. I also welcome Grace’s involvement in the discussion too.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob Hayton
Kent,
You have exactly highlighted the emphasis of Bob’s post by your string of questions. To be sure, your questions, in response to my statements of fact (which I intentionally worded that way to contadict doctrine I have been “taught” in IFB churches) are valid and legitimate. They ought to be asked. Your questions however, if asked to 1,000 true believers, who search the Scriptures, and desire to honor God, and stand by what they believe, will likely draw out several different positions.
What is “doubtful”, as Bob put it so succinctly above, is that we cannot say at this time, conclusively that your church has it right on pants, or my church has it right on music, etc. What we can say is that WE BELIEVE that we have it right in these issues.
Having said that, it is our responsibility to provide for unity over the essentials which, I am sure you understand are questions that can be answered clearly by Scripture.
Is Jesus God?
Is he also man?
Did he die as a payment for my sins?
How do I effect his payment on my behalf? etc.
You get the drift.
Honestly, I was not trying to insinuate that you do not care about “your family” or “your ekklesia”. Did you notice that I made a reference to the church universal in my quote of Scripture? (and you said I had none) …All those that in every place call upon the name of hte Lord…
Can we really care about Christ’s body if we divide over these unessentials. Don’t we really minimize Christ’s work and the Gospel by these divisive tendencies? Didn’t Christ say we all are one in Him?
To not answer these questions is critical.
by the by, I wouldn’t have thought that a jackhammer like yourself would be so thin skinned. Please forgive me if you think I disrespected you. :o)
Your brother in Christ
So “Grace,” you’re an anonymous man. It’s a handle; not your name. Who says I was thin skinned? I pointed out a poor argument, ad hominem. I think one needs to be pointed out when one happens. I’ll grant you referenced Scripture with ‘all those who call upon the name of the Lord,’ but that doesn’t mention the church at all. Saved people are the family of God and the kingdom of God, but they aren’t the church. You must be baptized (Acts 2:41) to be added to the church. Those who call is soteriological and the church is ecclesiological.
Bob and Grace, because I think that what I write here would speak to both of you,
You point out that people had disagreements. That doesn’t establish a historical doctrine of essentials and non-essentials. I’ve written a whole post on your 1 Cor. 15, first importance, interpretation. It’s a new interpretation to back up this new doctrine.
I’m not going to go over the Scriptural position on “the body of Christ.” The only definition in Scripture is when Paul says “ye are the body of Christ,” in 1 Cor. 12:27 and it speaks of the church at Corinth. The body is a metaphor to show how the church, which is local only, functions. I’m not concerned about divisions for the sake of the body, the only body. Paul would have been contradicting himself when in 1 Cor 11 when he said there must needs be divisions. The key is to keep the body pure and we do that by dividing over all unrepentant disobedience.
There’s only one way to bring unity and that is by emphasizing everything. Unity is based upon truth. We don’t bring true unity without focusing on it. Everything else is a faux unity for the sake of a non-scriptural, invisible something or other.
“The key is to keep the body pure and we do that by dividing over all unrepentant disobedience.”
This is a true statement. However, the Biblical definition of unrepentant disobedience must be clear, not “doubtful”.
I think Will Dudding’s last post on this is helpful, as he calls some of the issues that people (especially Baptists) divide over “pseudo doctrines”. These must be the “doubtful” or unessential things that we have been talking about.
Now, I don’t agree on everything with Mr. Dudding, or Bob, or you. But I wouldn’t hesitate to take the Lord’s supper with any of y’all, or counsel evangelistically (I’m sure you’ll have a field day with that one) at the local mission together, or many things.
Why? Because we are unified in the Gospel, give Liberty in disutable matters, and are generallly charitable with one another (supposed to be at any rate) despite our differences.
Would you?
Grace,
Our church and me fellowships based on what we believe and practice. We’re independent. I don’t think we just cut people off—we’re supposed to minister reconciliation. We give them due process, which is essentially laid out in Mt. 18. The church (which happens to have a bishop, 1 Tim. 3:1) is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), nothing bigger than that. Our church chooses what we fellowship and break fellowship upon. I have a lot of influence on that as the pastor (see pastoral espistles).
Charity (love, agape) is what God says it is, and so it is holy. Love doesn’t rejoice in iniquity. Love speaks the truth. Separation is love. Shaming a disobedient brother is not incompatible with love. His sin is damaging.
Gotta go.