In reading through Nine Mark’s e-journal on fundamentalism, I came across an audio lecture by Iain Murray (editor of Banner of Truth) on George Whitefield and Catholicity. Catholicity refers to a spirit of unity among the universal (i.e. Catholic) church, and not in any way to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.
The lecture was very interesting as it deals with George Whitefield’s life and influence. It focused on his ideas of Christian unity across denominational lines. And Murray alleges that this emphasis on Christian catholicity directly resulted in the birth of modern missions and other evangelistic ventures such as Bible societies and publishing houses. Murray is careful to apply Whitefield’s story to today’s Christianity, and warns against both a radical ecumenism and a sectarian disregard for unity.
In his lecture, he quoted from John Calvin on the idea of doctrines being fundamental or not. And as we’ve been arguing the historicity and validity of this idea (that doctrines can be ranked as primary and secondary, etc.), I thought I’d share the full quote, which I found in Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4, Chapter 1, section 12.
What is more, some fault may creep into the administration of either doctrine or sacraments, but this ought not to estrange us from communion with the church. For not all the articles of true doctrine are of the same sort. Some are so necessary to know that they should be certain and unquestioned by all men as the proper principles of religion. Such are: God is one; Christ is God and the Son of God; our salvation rests in God’s mercy; and the like. Among the churches there are other articles of doctrine disputed which still do not break the unity of faith. Suppose that one church believes–short of unbridled contention and opinionated stubbornness–that souls upon leaving bodies fly to heaven; while another, not daring to define the place, is convinced nevertheless that they live to the Lord. What churches would disagree on this one point? Here are the apostle’s words: “Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be of the same mind; and if you be differently minded in anything, God shall reveal this also to you” [Phil. 3:15]. Does this not sufficiently indicate that a difference of opinion over these nonessential matters* should in no wise be the base of schism among Christians? First and foremost, we should agree on all points. But since all men are somewhat beclouded with ignorance, either we must leave no church remaining, or we must condone delusion in those matters which can go unknown without harm to the sum of religion and without loss of salvation. (emphasis added)
Also note the footnote (at the place where the asterisk is in the above quote), where John McNeill notes several proponents of this fundamental doctrine ideal in the seventeenth century.
*What follows is the footnote in my copy of the Institutes (edited by John McNeill [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960] ), emphasis added:
Cf. IV. ii. 1. The distinction of fundamental and nonfundamental articles of belief is woven into Calvin’s thought, though not definitively treated by him. F. Wendel remarks on the importance of this doctrine in Calvin’s championing of church unity, and cites Comm. I Cor. 3:11 (Corpus Reformatorum: Johannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia XLIX. 1354): “The fundamental doctrine, which it is nowise permissible to break, is that we cleave to Christ, for he is the only foundation [unique fondament] of the church.” The doctrines here named are introduced by the word qualia (such as) and are of course not a full enumeration of those which Calvin would hold requisite. The notion of fundamental articles formed the core of various liberal projects of union in the seventeenth century when it was advanced by Georg Calixtus, Pierre Jurieu, Samuel Werenfels, J.A. Turretin, and others. See Rouse and Neill, A History of the Ecumenical Movement, pp. 79 ff., 92 f., 107, 111.
I’ll have more to say on Nine Mark’s e-journal later. For now, you should know that several excellent articles on the question of fundamentalism, separation and unity are brought together in this one resource. I find it very helpful.
What I can say about Calvin’s spin on Philippians 3:15 is “Wow!” What a twist of a passage. It means nothing of the kind. And that is the extent of the Scriptural authority for this position—Philippians 3:15?
I’ll get to Philippians 3:15 in a moment, but first let me get to the obvious point you’re making Bob. Admirably, you want to make sure that your new position, since you have made your giant leap, is historic. The unity based on dividing into essentials and non-essentials is extremely important to your new position. It would be a tough one for you to be taking a position that is non-historical. You’re being honest about this—this is where I commend you. But what you find yourself doing is scouring to look for this position, when it ought to be easy to find if it was a historic belief.
To start, anyone that believes in Catholicity must have an explainable position of unity. That’s obvious. I have already mentioned that I believed that men obviously practiced unity on what they believed were the essentials. What I have said is that there isn’t history of this being an exegeted position—something that shows that it is historic SCRIPTURAL doctrine. It is historically practiced. Yes. So was infant sprinkling and state churchism and divine right of kings to a certain extent, back as far as the medieval period. So what we have here is, despite the lack of Scripture, except for one reference, a reference that says to you, Bob, “They showed how that Scripture teaches this!” I officially grant you this. You have Calvin opining about this and giving a minutely brief reference to a verse. Voila! You have a theology!
Or do you? Do we fold up into the fetal position before Calvin? After all, the great lawyer/theologian, who wrote the very confusing Institutes that seems to contradict itself in numbers of places even by admission of Calvin fans, says this is the verse that marks the Scriptural teaching of essentials/non-essentials.
Philippians 3:15 isn’t remotely about that. You don’t get a sniff of this in that verse. I have to say, and I don’t usually make these kinds of comments, that what Calvin says is laughable. What is the “same mind” that Paul wanted the Philippians to have with him? It was the same mind or attitude of this pursuit of Christlikeness that he just talked about in the context. Paul uses sarcasm with the term “perfect,” because he himself had just said that nobody had reached perfection until they reach Christ. If they weren’t going to have that mindset of pursuing Christlikeness, then his hope was that God would expose this wrong way of thinking and help them change it.
I decided right now to look at Gill to see if he said the same thing as Calvin, just in case, and, of course, he says nothing of the kind. His dealing reflects what I just wrote above.
Why is it that evangelicals are so picky of the shallow references to Scripture by revivalist fundamentalists, but they absolutely swoon over swill that Calvin puts in print? Shouldn’t we leave our discernment grid up all the time?
One more thing for now—I should have mentioned that what Paul teaches in Philippians 3:15 is the exact opposite of what Calvin wants it to mean to keep alive his desire for fake unity. Growing to perfection in Christlikeness doesn’t mean reducing the attributes of Christlikeness to a small number that we can keep in our own. This is growing in the numbers of ways that we are like Christ. We are looking for more and more ways to be like Christ and less like the world. What Calvin’s teaching does is minimize the qualities of Christlikeness and Paul’s teaching in Philippians 3:15 is maximizing the number.
Okay, for some context. I started this out with a post on how I view excessive separation as being something which can minimize the importance of the Gospel. If the Gospel isn’t important enough to unify around despite differences in secondary matters, then it can become just another thing which we proclaim and separate over. And since it isn’t as hot of a topic in our fights over separation, it gets washed under the bridge and other matters get our focus and attention and our energies.
Then Kent Brandenburg came on here to dispute the very idea of there being primary doctrines and secondary ones. Scripture is totally clear in everything it teaches, he claims, and everything is important. Nothing is optional.
In arguing his case, he included phrases like this:
“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.” (link to comment)
“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.” (link to comment)
So I followed up with a post trying to prove that this idea is not new to our age, it didn’t start with the trans-denominational unity in the original Fundamentalist Movement of the 1920s. I cited John Wesley as 1 example and gave some other proofs. In the comments, NeoFundamentalist quoted from the preface to the KJV in 1611, as further proof of this non-essential/essential idea.
Then I posted the above quote by Calvin. I finally get an admission now by Brandenburg that I have at least proven that the essential/non-essential idea of unifying around essential doctrines is not a strictly 20th century idea. It is historic Protestant practice and teaching.
Now as far as it being doctrine, I admit it is gleaned from and inferred from Scripture and is not really an explicit doctrinal teaching. I think Calvin is using Phil. 3:15 to provide some support for the idea that complete unanimity of practice and thought is not required to have unity. I agree it is not the main teaching of Phil. 3:15, and Calvin isn’t claiming that is the main point of the passage. He isn’t belittling Christ-likeness or any such thing. Just check out his commentary on the passage. He makes it clear what the main point of the verse is and then says: “Let us in the mean time learn also from this passage, that we must bear for a time with ignorance in our weak brethren, and forgive them, if it is not given them immediately to be altogether of one mind with us. Paul felt assured as to his doctrine, and yet he allows those who could not as yet receive it time to make progress, and he does not cease on that account to regard them as brethren, only he cautions them against flattering themselves in their ignorance.” (Note in vs. 17 Paul calls these people “brothers”.)
I should make it clear here, that I don’t support this idea (the unify around fundamental doctrines idea) because of who else subscribes to it. Surely if Calvin and other historic people didn’t hold to the idea that would make me questio nit more. But they aren’t determinative to me. (As an aside here, I should state that I am using “fundamental” and “essential” synonymously, and in this whole discussion I have basically done this as well.)
As I demonstrated earlier, there is a historic understanding of 1 Cor. 15:3 to be stating that the gospel is a “first thing”. this implies that other matters are not necessarily “first things”. Albeit it is not the direct teaching of that text. However, as MacArthur has pointed out, two other points support this idea. 1) Not every doctrine in Scripture is equally clear. 2) Certain truths and doctrines are emphasized as penultimately important due to explicit statements of denial = cursing or affirmation is required for salvation. Let me discuss each briefly here.
1) Not everything is equally clear. This is obvious to most readers. The identification of “the little horn” in Daniel is not as clear as the identity of the promised Messiah. Whether a rapture-event will take believers up to meet Christ immeditaely before a 7 year tribulation, or simply before Christ’s actual 2nd Coming and the judgment He brings for the lost and the rest/joy he brings eternally for the saved is not a simple and very clear matter. The Deity of Christ and salvation by grace through faith are more clear than which form of church government is demanded of all believers and whether or not communion should be shared with like-minded believers of other churches, or just among the members of one church only.
A side note here, it is also apparent that not all of these issues have such an eternal importance as the other. Each issue above is very important, but not equally so.
2) Some issues are given explicit importance in Scripture not given to other issues.
Here are some examples:
a) If we do not confess Christ is come in the flesh, we will not be saved. (1 John 4)
b) Bringing another gospel is an action worthy of cursing and eternal damnation. (Gal. 1)
c) Being wrong on eschatology is a matter for patient teaching (1 and 2 Thessalonians)
d) Being wrong on several practical and doctrinal matters, results in a letter addressing these points yet making it clear that Paul views the Corinthians as fellow-believers.
e) Serious doctinal problems do not result in a church being viewed as a non-church by Christ, although that potential does exist, given no repentance. (Rev. 2 and 3)
I conclude that such thoughts and implications from Scripture, lead us to see that certain truths are more important than others. Good Christians differ on some of these issues and yet are not denying Christ and the Gospel. We are all human and thus our reasoning capacities are limited and marred by sin, hence the difficulty of every Christian agreeing on every point.
I would further add that the separation passages deal with specific issues and circumstances and deal with separating form apostates, divisive people in the church, and disorderly (sinful) brothers in the church. They don’t expressly call for separation over every doctrinal difference.
Given the above, I hold to the essential/non-essential idea. I don’t depend on Phil. 3:15 or an express statement from Scripture for this doctirne. It is theological and gained from considerations of how Scripture as a whole treats doctrine and etc. Again I would refer people to MacArthur’s articles on this subject.
I hope this helps explain my position, and why I brought this article forward.
I should also note that many fundamentalists would not agree with Kent Brandenburg to the extent he takes this. They largely agree that there are fundamental and essential truths around which we can find some unity. They see unity as something that can come at different levels, and would be more separatistic than I, often. Yet they would not demand agreement around every doctrinal point in order for their to be meaningful unity among churches and believers. And they would not see every doctrinal point as equally important. (I’m thinking largely of the BJU kind of fundamentalist, as opposed to Hyles Anderson kind. However, even the Hyles Anderson kind expressly aim for unity around certain non-negotiables but allow for differences on several points that don’t impact fellowship.)
Anyway, I’m about through arguing this point now. I well understand Brandenburg doesn’t agree. And that’s fine with me. I believe I have put forth my case well enough.
Instead, I intend to go on and discuss the recent Nine Marks ejournal on fundamentalism, which discusses separation and unity. Those topics deserve more attention on my blog at some point.
Bob Hayton
Scripture itself is perspicuous, that is, clear. This is a doctrine exegeted explicitly and historically. It is also inerrant. So you have something that teaches everything clear and is authoritative on every point, because it has no errors. Things that are not clear are non-scriptural issues. Non-scriptural issues are not clear. I don’t decide that a particular point of Scripture is not clear because many people disagree over it, no matter what it is, including the understanding of one of Daniel’s prophecies.
I have said that I don’t doubt that people disagree and that people have unified despite disagreements. This, however, doesn’t mean that God has made certain teachings, actual teachings of Scripture, non-essential. I have shown over at my blog how that Scripture is explicit about this point, that everything that God says is essential, and that has not been answered.
I see the secondary doctrine issue for what it is. It enables professing Christians to do almost anything they want without confrontation. All they have to do is find someone who has taught something different on the passage that confronts what they want to continue doing.
I don’t believe that the primary/tertiary doctrine is exegetical or historical. I granted that you will find people who practiced it and talked about it. You won’t find that they developed it from Scripture. It’s just an opinion like what we see with Bob above. It’s a very, very important position for evangelicals despite the dearth of Scripture on this for reasons I’ve already discussed. They minimize doctrine for the sake of acceptance and popularity. You can tell this is the case. How? In part by the fact that they don’t even separate over the gospel, let alone what they think are secondary matters.
Just to reinforce the point about Philippians 3:15 and Calvin. That verse says nothing, absolutely nothing, about what Calvin says that it is teaching on the tertiary/secondary doctrine. Neither does 1 Cor. 15:3.
Thomas Manton, a Puritan from the 1600s also saw Phil. 3:15 as teaching indirectly on this point. See this comment, which includes some excerpts from his sermon entitled “A Persuasive to Unity in Things Indifferent” with Phil. 3;15 as the text.
The more I look at Phil. 3:15, the more I wonder about your view of Calvin’s interpretation. You say it’s laughable.
Hardly.
As mentioned above, Manton held this view. I think Henry or one of the other freely available commentaries I saw online came close to this as well. I picked up a critical commentary I happened to own on Philippians and found this:
From Peter T. O’Brien’s excellent commentary on Philippians in the NIGTC series:
O’Brien goes on to argue convincingly that the use of “perfect” should not be understood as a use of irony, but rather as meaning “mature”. He translates the next phrase as “and if there is any point on which you think differently”. I quote from O’Brien again on this point:
He goes on to conclude:
O’Brien references Lightfoot, which I looked up as well, as follows: “If you are sound at the core God will remove the superficial blemishes”.
Before I conclude here, let me also quote from the Word Biblical Commentary (also a critical commentary) by Gerald Hawthorne:
Now Hawthorne did argue for “perfect” to be understood as a touch of irony. But regardless, he and O’Brien (with Lightfoot) agree that Paul is patiently saying that if some of his Philippian readers differ with his conclusions on some points, or are otherwise minded on some point, that God will reveal it to them. Paul is hoping the best for these people and assuming they are Christians, even though they differ with him.
This is a correct understanding of the text, and from this Calvin and Manton draw out an application. That we don’t have to demand complete unanimity from people, but can let God bring additional light to these people to convince them of matters which are secondary to the fact that they agree with us on the gospel. In dealing with people who differ with us and disagree with us, this passage, Phil. 3:15 is very instructive. We don’t have to have a “my way or the highway” approach.
And to Calvin and Manton can be added Matthew Poole:
Bob,
The commentaries that you produced agree with what I said, whether “perfect” is sarcastic or ironical “perfect” or actual “perfect.” The one path is Christlikeness and if there are those that would not be of the same mind as Paul about this, God would reveal it to them. You’ve got Calvin and Manton who make the same point from Philip. 3:15 and it would be laughable if it weren’t so serious an issue. Calvin and Manton (who easily could have been influenced by Calvin to write what he wrote) take this teaching and say that Paul was saying that they had some differences in doctrine and that they needed to just go ahead and have unity on all of them and that God would lead them to this kind of tolerance of each other’s differences.
This is complete eisogesis. None of the guys you even quoted say anything of the kind. They are talking about maturity, Christlikeness, and that these Philippians needed to have the same mind as Paul about it (“I haven’t attained but I press toward the mark”), and that if they don’t, that God would reveal it. I have the same optimism about converted people since they have the Lord. Where do any of the commentaries say this?
You are completely myopic about this. Your face is buried in this position and you are looking for it everywhere, seeing all over, even in commentaries, where it is not. If some revivalist fundamentalist were attempting to make the same kind of point like you, you would be all over it.
Be close minded then. I am not trying to find this in every commentary and under every rock.
Calvin is giving an application from the passage. The passage has Paul not apostolically demanding conformity in every particular. He trusts God will bring the individuals around to embracing his position ultimately. But two verses later he calls them brothers nonetheless.
O’Brien, especially, and the Word commentary perhaps a little, argues for understanding the points of contention between Paul and the others as not in big huge things. Not disagreements over being Christ-like. Rather differing on on other things, and perhaps how we are to approach our striving for perfection as Christians.
From this fact, Calvin and Manton argue that we should learn from how Paul deals with these Christian brothers (Paul calls them that in vs. 17), in the matters he differs with them in. He doesn’t demand conformity on threat of expulsion, as he does in other contexts and with other errors. Instead he treats them charitably, assumes they are brothers, and trusts that God ultimately will convince them of their errors.
How you view such an application as being a tragic dealing with the text escapes me, to be frank.
As for Manton, you should really read his sermon. It is very thoughtful and cites many other passages in support for his overall views on unity. I found it online in this pdf. You have to scan through to page 67. The page numbers on the bottom left are not always accurate to the pages on the top corner of the scanned pages. but just scroll down or press the arrow buttons in the lower left until you come to the sermon entitled: “A Persuasive to Unity in Things Indifferent”.
The more I study Phil. 3:15, the more convinced I am that Calvin’s application is legitimate.
I had actually been keeping up with the comments at SI on the 9 Marks articles and saw the Manton reference before you posted it. I knew you would see it and hop on it, so it wasn’t surprise here. I’ve read much of Manton and I always sort through it and pick the meat from the gristle. You can learn from these men, but they are many, many times off in their dealing with the text.
I have the Word Biblical Commentary. I had already read what it said in Philippians and seen that it doesn’t make the Calvin misapplication. Of course, exegetical commentaries usually don’t go that far with application. You are definitely reading into the commentaries that you quoted. And here is exactly how, so you can rest assured I’m not closed minded. They show in context that men were at different points of progress in their perfection (Christlikeness). They had not attained. Paul knew that it was not him that would bring them to perfection, but God. Christlikeness was not several different doctrinal options that they would all come to unity upon, despite their differences. The men who had not progressed as far as Paul would find unity with Paul when they had arrived at the same mind of perfection that he had, which they had not.
It is a total read into the text (by Calvin, Manton, and you) and into the commentaries (by you) to find this unity around essentials teaching.
I will write a full critique at some point soon on my blog concerning the Manton article. You should temper your love for it with the text of Scripture. I see his teaching not only as non-Scriptural but also unscriptural and dangerous.
I thought this article by turretinfan was good as it relates to your article.
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2008/04/unity-liberty-and-charity-who-said-it.html