Recently we’ve been debating the idea of whether certain doctrines should be considered fundamental or essential, and others merely secondary. Most Christians and even fundamentalists do admit that there are essential doctrines that are more important than others. However, as my last installment of my church’s elder confession of faith shows, this doesn’t mean other doctrines are not important.
With these thoughts on my mind, I was surprised to find a recent discussion of this very topic from my church’s most recent conference. At the 2008 Bethlehem Conference for Pastors, they had a panel discussion on a variety of topics. One of the questions was “What makes a doctrine essential?” John Piper and D.A. Carson did a good job discussing that question. I took the conference video (available for download), and tried to cut it down to just this question: unfortunately, during the last 2 minutes, the audio and video are a little out of sync, but not too much.
Update: I should also note that I thought Carson’s warning about “being prophetic from the margins” was similar to my contention that majoring on the minors belittles the Gospel. Also, if anyone can’t view the video online, or download the original video, they can read the transcript.
Thank you so much for posting this. Very helpful!
Thanks, Don. If you get a chance, maybe you could weigh in on the debate over whether doctrines can be ranked in importance.
John Piper was interesting to watch. He uses his voice, shouts, gets intense, pulls up his hand like a claw, and uses no Scripture. We’re supposed to just believe what he says. “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God,” 1 Peter 4:11. We get the oracles of John Piper. Then we get what I see as becoming the proof text for this position and it is not a historical view of the text in 1 Corinthians 15:3. MacArthur in his 1 Corinthians commentary says nothing about it. For something seemingly so important, he doesn’t even comment, and he is one who normally always comments. Thomas Charles Edwards in 1885 in his classic commentary on 1 Corinthians writes: “Not ‘among the chief doctrines,’ but ‘among the things to be stated first” (p. 392).
Mark Dever, the Southern Baptist pastor in the Washington, DC area, uses 1 Corinthians 15:3 as a proof text for a taxonomy of doctrine to decide what is worth separating over. It amazes me how sure they are that the text is propagating their kind of essential/non-essential teaching. If these kinds of classifications are found in the Bible at all, they could only be inferred from the text. Evangelicals are notorious for not requiring doctrine and practice based upon inferences, and yet, here they require it. In the John Piper, Bethlehem Baptist statement on Scripture, we read: “It is not legitimate to infer a meaning from a Biblical text that is not demonstrably carried by the words which God inspired.” So go ahead and look at what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:3:
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.
Dever preaches (“Discern Your Doctrine” message) that “first” (protos) means “most important” here. When Paul wrote “first of all,” Dever is saying that the gospel is a more important doctrine than any other doctrine. He jumps from there to say that the gospel then is the doctrine that Paul would separate over. Dever would not say that we shouldn’t separate over other doctrines, just that the gospel is more important than the other doctrines. Then he would say that it is easy to see that certain teachings are not worth separating over, like those mentioned in Romans 14.
What’s wrong with all this?
1. The passages on separation, like the three above, don’t limit separation to the gospel alone.
2. Protos (“first”) doesn’t for sure mean “most important,” but also could mean “first in order,” that is, that Paul would preach the gospel before he preached other doctrines. And then even if it means “most important” or “foremost,” he might be saying that the the death, burial, and resurrection are the most important of any of the truths that he is teaching in 1 Corinthians 15.
3. 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4 doesn’t provide any kind of taxonomy for separation, even if it were a more important doctrine than others.
4. A Romans 14 issue is a non-scriptural one. We don’t separate over non-scriptural issues. That doesn’t instruct us then not to separate over Scriptural ones.
5. The Bible doesn’t mention anywhere a taxonomy of doctrines worth separating over. It isn’t even implied anywhere. Neither will you find it taught in historical materials.
I’m going to be writing in a next segment on how this relates to the gospel.
#3, Kent:
Your arguments are compelling (at least to me) and not easily dismissed or refuted.
Thanks for arguing.
Martin Luther wrote: “If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”
Martin Luther is making quite an excellent statement here, one that is directly applicable and relevant to the debate and discussion over essential/secondary doctrines, over central/marginal doctrines.
Suppose that little doctrinal point which the world and the devil are attacking is considered to be a “secondary” or “marginal” or a “non-salvific” doctrine by many well-meaning and well-intentioned Christians. And this doctrinal attack is occurring within the Church. There are polemic arguments and battles being waged over the value of biblical discernment, over what is biblical truth, over what is love, over what is unity, over hermeneutic approaches and exegesis, etc….
And suppose at the end of the day, everyone agrees to disagree. And suppose some think that biblical separation is necessary for them to maintain biblical holiness.
Would you Bob condemn those folks who separate due to biblical convictions as being excessively schismatic and sinful legalists?
Truth,
I like that statement by Luther too. And though Bob highlighted Carson’s “preaching from the margins” comment, he ended his panel answer with exactly the observation you are making above. Certain issues become important at certain times because they are under attack. Would cessationism be as important if it weren’t for the Charismatic movement? Would complementarianism be as important if it weren’t for modern feminism?
I’ve seen you Truth over at Daniel Wallace’s sight and, as you know, he says inerrancy is a secondary issue. I know why and I’ve also written much on that.
Thanks.
Kent,
Historically the intent of 1 Peter 4:11 is not that men should always only speak the word of God (Boy, that would be interesting, only being allowed to speak with Scripture, I guess it wouldn’t hurt some Christians to at least try it for a little while, but I’ve been in churches where that happens constantly (and often extra-contextually most of the time and it can be grieving, but I digress) but that men should speak AS the oracles of God or as M. Henry comments “First, It is the duty of Christians in private, as well as ministers in public to speak to one another of (about, regarding, or concerning the things of God- as opposed to the vain jangling and idle fixations on sensual and less that glorifying verbal content) the things of God. Second, It highly concerns all preachers to keep close to the Word and to treat those ( his own) words as becomes the oracles of God. Thirdly, Whatever we are called to do for the honour of God we and the good of others we should do it with all our might.” [Matther Henry’s Commentary in one Volume, p1947] -parenthesis mine
You may lowly view Piper’s physical demonstrations in the video and dismiss him because he did not actually quote a Scripture verse in that one particular brief summation but could he not have been fulfilling 1 Peter 4:11 in the three criteria set forth by Henry? Can you answer this question objectively?
One quick rejoinder before I have time to answer in more detail:
Brandenburg said:
Matthew Henry in the 1700s in his commentary on the whole Bible said:
Charles Hodge in 1857 in his commentary on 1 Corinthians said:
These men agree that en protois points to importance. Albert Barnes in the 1800s concludes similarly in his commentary:
A.T. Robertson, one of the foremost Greek scholars of his day in his Word Pictures declares:
Adam Clarke, concludes it refers to “fundamental truths”. Gill supports a similar understanding of the Greek as the above commentators do.
Granted the Greek can go either way, but historically many have agreed that “of first importance” is to be preferred.
Bob,
Kent Brandenburg also wrote: “And then even if it means “most important†or “foremost,†he might be saying that the the death, burial, and resurrection are the most important of any of the truths that he is teaching in 1 Corinthians 15.”
In other words, I may not have been clear but I was still talking about the essential/non-essential teaching. I’ve always considered you to be a smart guy. I still do. I’ll leave it with that positive in order to say that I figured you would do this, even though the point was essentials and non-essentials, primary and secondary. Taking one word “foremost” and using it as a proof text for a essential and non-essential is not historical. MacArthur believes it means “foremost,” but he makes no point about essential/non-essential doctrine. I never heard it until Dever.
Grace,
I agree that we don’t have to quote a verse to be “oracles,” but we must at least reference one. I was expecting 1 Cor. 15:3 because it is what has been scrounged up to serve the purpose, and I did think that Carson deftly made the connection for Piper. I brought up the histronics of John Piper because that is often the critique of one segment of IFBx—lots of style with little substance. Since Bob linked to it, I was expecting something convincing.
For all,
My belief is that this essential/non-essential doctrine is a johnny-come-lately cover for dismissing what is all over Scripture—the doctrine of separation. They disobey separation and 1 Cor. 15:3 has become the proof text. It isn’t even implied by the verse. We are all supposed to be looking for what God says about this, aren’t we?
Kent,
I think we’ve gotten off track here in the fact that no one is arguing against the NT doctrine of separation. You’re right, it is all over Scripture. The question is, then, iwhat do we seperate over. I believe Bob has posited clearly in a post (which I can’t find at the moment) that there are clear pararmaters for separation from other Chritians.
It is when those paramaters have been expanded to include other issues that we violate another manadate of Scripture that is being overlooked here. The biblical mandate for Unity. Let me use some Scripture to support this claim.
John 10:16 Jesus says “And other sheep I have which are not of this fold: them also must I bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.”
Since he is talking to his Israelite leadership team, I assume the other sheep are Gentiles, and is talking about the church-being one “new man” not distinguished by nationality. But notice there is just one “fold”. What is the basis for inclusion into this one-ness? His bringing them to faith in himself. Faith in Christ. Belief in the Gospel. Nothing else. Church discipline in a local church (or biblical separation, if you will) is correctly used to bring erring brothers back into this one (not local) fold or let them be acknowledged as outside of it (Matt. 18;15-19). We must be very careful. When we separate from other believers we must 1. use biblical means of discipline 2. Use biblical parameters for this sepration or we do become dividers of our Shepherd’s one flock.
Eph. 4:1-3 “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation wherewith you are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forebearing one another in love: ENDEAVERING TO KEEP THE UNITY OF THE SPIRIT IN THE BOND OF PEACE.”
There is a Unity among believers that must be worked at, that will only come through the fruit of the Spirit listed above. Why is this so important?
Paul goes on to say why in vvs 4-6. “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”
IT is important to say that there is ONE BODY. Because of the other “ones” listed afterward (7 to be exact for all you numerologists). One body…One Spirit…One Gospel…One spiritual baptism…One Lord Jesus…One faith…One God. This is important. This is the basis for Unity. THESE ARE THE ESSENTIALS.
When we divide for unbiblical reasons we cause our dis-unity to do something very damaging. In essence we are saying through our separation that there are many bodies. The members of these bodies are saved but I am separating with them because of this or that. When we say that there are many bodies then we begin to unravel the great, majestic, supernatural Unity of God displayed through his gracious present work- the church. If these divisions exist they deny that unity and discredit God, whose desire that the church is “Christ’s body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.”
As a discaimer let me add: I am not attacking the doctrine of the local church. I believe that the majority of NT references to church are local. However, I believe, not only with IFBx-dom, but with denominations that separate from other local bodies over “secondary issues” i.e. anything not nesessary for inclusion in Jesus’ “one fold” is wrong. In the over emphasis of the local church we have lost the true doctrine of Unity and are labeled ecumenicals and heretics for trying to recover it.
Also, once again, we must separate brothers from us who are clearly, admittedly, and unrepentently in sin. But this principle should never be used to tear apart the unity between all believers concerning perceptions, and personal interpretaions and not clear Scriptural warrant.
P.S. You quoted a while ago that Paul said there “must be divisions” in the local body. I think that Paul would rather that there would not be (and with discipline there would’t be for long) but understood that God allowed people to put forth dangereous and heretical doctrines in order to demonstrate those that were “approved” i.e. the “unashamed workmen” who “rightly divided the truth”. Temporarily nesessary, but not permanently desirable.
Everyone, I continue the conversation in the post linked above. Thanks for contributing to the discussion. (Glad to have someone else in the trenches, “Grace”!)
There’s a lot of attention focused on the early verses of 1 Cor. 15 about whether Paul preached the gospel first chronologically or hierarchically, if you will. While I agree that the gospel is “of first importance,” and therefore, not only should it be preached first in order of appearance, but continually as the basis for all the other doctrines, I wonder if anyone would say that the concept of being baptized on behalf of the dead, mentioned in verse 29 would be of equal importance with the gospel, if the gospel is only chronologically first among equally fundamental doctrines? If so, why is there no more elaboration about it elsewhere in Scripture? If it’s equally fundamental with the gospel, then how do we stand for it and against errant views regarding it, if we have no more than this scant reference to the doctrine?
Yes, it’s an inference, but this tells me some things are less fundamental than others. Some things are foundational and other things are built on the foundation. I think we’ll all agree the gospel is certainly the foundation.