Posted on 11/21/2013 6:55:00 AM PST by Gamecock
Christians will commonly argue with each other about “secondary” issues of doctrine, while assuring themselves and the rest of us that it’s okay since they agree on the “primary” issues. Obviously, not all topics of biblical teaching are on the same level of importance. On the basis of this sort of distinction between “primary” and “secondary” we can readily join with Christians across denominational lines while continuing to warn Mormons that they have the primary material wrong.
My concern is that the well-intentioned emphasis on the basics of mere Christianity and “primary issues” that we can all agree on also disparages the “secondary issues.” Less clarity in the Bible, less agreement among Christians, and less treatment by the tradition should not add up to counting these matters as unimportant. I suggest that the doctrinal topics that Christians feel free to disagree about are not adiaphora in the sense that we need not take them seriously. I propose a different analogy to help alleviate this concern.
For example, lots of people will line up and howl about disagreements regarding eschatology. People readily roll their eyes, let out heavy sighs, and check their watch (or phone) to see if somehow they can escape a nit-picky and acrimonious discussion. Topics such as the rapture of the church, the tribulation, the meaning of the millennium, and the nature of hell seem to get seconded to the status of “let’s not talk about that now.” Also uncomfortable are discussions about contemporary prophecy, speaking in tongues, the office of apostleship, and the correlation between science and our theology of the Genesis account.
The problem with setting these topics aside from discussion among friends in the local church is that people don’t think about them, as if such topics are a waste of time and harmfully divisive. (On many occasions, discussion has led to division, but maybe the fault in these splits has not been theology but other interpersonal issues are the real cause of division). Without thinking about these doctrines rigorously, I doubt that people are going to understand them well, so people will be limited to the thoughtless sound bites about these topics that come through jokes, or derogatory comments about someone who actually believes some position on the topic. Sometimes, it seems that people just doubt the truth is even knowable for these topics, and judge anyone who forms a conviction about them as just narrow, arrogant, and not to be listened to. In a word, such a person is counted a Fundamentalist Bible-thumper of yesteryear.
The usual model offered to correlate the various levels of doctrines in their importance may contribute to the marginalization of and distaste for the “lesser” topics of theology. Concentric circles display the center as the core of Christian doctrine: Trinity, Jesus, Scripture, and salvation by grace through faith. Outer layers to this core give levels of decreasing importance that account for differing denominations and Christian practices, such as views of the meaning of water baptism, the Lord’s Supper, topics of eschatology, and etc.
This typical model of a hierarchy of doctrines haunted me when someone in a large audience at a debate asked me if hell was an essential doctrine. Hmmm, I wondered. Essential to what? Essential in what way? I think the intended meaning was “primary” and “core” as a doctrine that is central to Christian faith, something that must be affirmed to count as Christian. The concentric circles model was misleading for me to think through how to answer that question. I have another model to suggest in its place.
I offer the model of the human body to understand and explain the relation of doctrinal topics in our belief system. In the body, a dysfunction or sickness for an organ such as the heart is going to bring down the body much faster than a similar problem in another organ, such as the gall bladder, a muscle group, or the skin (the largest organ). A tumor in the brain is harder to ignore and usually more lethal than a tumor in the forearm. By application to theology, a problem with your doctrine of God is going to cause more severe problems that are more immediately apparent than a problem with your doctrine of hell. This does not mean that hell, like your gall bladder or forearm, is unimportant or even less important to the whole doctrinal system. Similarly, people probably don’t think very often about the identity of the church in relation to biblical Israel, but a problem here can show up in subtle ways like having high cholesterol in the bloodstream, and the buildup of plaque in one’s arteries. We only think about this when we get a blood test that shows a problem, or when there is some sort of disruption of blood flow.
The analogy shows that a problem may take longer to show up because that doctrinal part, the theological organ, does not do as much for the overall well-being of the body, as compared to your doctrine of Jesus or salvation by grace (alone, as my affinity for Luther presses me to add).
People can live without considering some doctrines (such as eschatology), but I wonder if this is similar to living without a leg. You can do it, but it’s not best, and your overall functioning will be disabled. We may be more aware of certain organs in our bodies (such as our skin, or our lungs and heart), but this does not mean that the organs we pay less attention to on a daily basis are not doing important jobs. Similarly, everything that God revealed as topics of doctrine does important jobs in our belief and practice, whether we are aware of it or not.
A truly whole-Bible theology should embrace all the doctrines, and pursue confidence and understanding of everything God has given us, no matter how much or how little it drifts into the center of our attention. Know your body, and it will help you know your theology. In this way, the ultimate unity of our understanding of biblical teaching may be preserved in a way that the concentric circles model seems to miss (and mislead). You can have your core circles and leave the others behind. You can’t do this with the body: a heart without a stomach, arms, blood vessels, etc. is not going to be alive very long. All the parts contribute to each other in many ways, manifesting the interdependence and unity of the whole. Such is our theology as well, even the weird stuff that seems just foolishness and weakness to us.
Titus 1:9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
This discussion has only been going on for 2000 years.
A truly whole-Bible theology should embrace all the doctrines, and pursue confidence and understanding of everything God has given us, no matter how much or how little it drifts into the center of our attention. Know your body, and it will help you know your theology. In this way, the ultimate unity of our understanding of biblical teaching may be preserved in a way that the concentric circles model seems to miss (and mislead). You can have your core circles and leave the others behind. You can’t do this with the body: a heart without a stomach, arms, blood vessels, etc. is not going to be alive very long. All the parts contribute to each other in many ways, manifesting the interdependence and unity of the whole. Such is our theology as well, even the weird stuff that seems just foolishness and weakness to us.
Interesting thread topic!
All I want to know is what was the Gospel Jesus preached? Oh, and was it the same Gospel that was preached to Abraham?
That’s why “All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable ... “ !
***All I want to know is what was the Gospel Jesus preached?***
Sooo, the Mormons will tell you that they teach the Gospel Jesus taught. Is it the same as yours? Why or why not.
All Scripture?
Scripture says that there is even more information. Read the last chapter of John.
The Holy Tradition of one to one — face to face — passing on the Scripture.
One of the great draw backs to these religious threads is that so little effort is made to fit a particular doctrine in the whole teaching of the Scriptures, the question of how and what salvation is being a good example.
All the teachings of the Scriptures are important but are there some that should carry extra emphasis than others? and so forth.
Looking at some the threads dealing with personal salvation one would be justified in thinking that this is THE concern of God’s servants through out time in and of itself but is that so or is our personal salvation part of and leading to a much more important whole?
What Scriptures can I point to that would suggest an answer? Or is arguing over the details of personal salvation akin to arguing over the size of our slice of pie?
More information - but more scripture? Was every single thing that the apostles said, and every single word written about them by later scribes, considered by your church to be Holy-Spirit-inspired, inerrant and infallible?
The teachings of JESUS are well documented and clearly stated in The New Testament. They were written by men who were touched by the Holy Spirit. The Bible tells us to ignore any teachings that go against what the Bible states and to not put our faith in man or men but in GOD. Seems pretty clear to me. Whatever teachings go against the word of GOD must be ignored. I cannot speak to certain church doctrines... I had to break with my own church that I was raised in because of the national body embracing things that go against the Word of GOD and of JESUS.
Generally speaking if a meaty theological post is made on FR it quickly drops to the bottom. People are more interested in “belly button gazing” than serious discussion. Threads about belly buttons go on forever, or so it seems.
Agreed and sadly so. I do appreciate the attempts at serious discussion as I’ve learned much from them both in the give and take but that seems to be rare lately.
Nonetheless, I’m still interested in the vigorous yet impersonal debate that FR should be famous for. Bring it on!
I only see ten posts on the thread.
Christ said that all but the elect would be deceived before His appointed return. I see scant discussion on what preparations are being made... parable of the 10 virgins having enough oil/truth for that impending time. The overwhelming discussion is about some flesh being’s established denomination, where one Scripture is made the theology ignoring that Christ came in the Volume of the Book!
2 Timothy 3:16-17
King James Version (KJV)
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
NOT thoroughly
Believe it or not, that was a cut and paste from google claiming KJV, and after I posted and re-read it, I knew it was wrong.
John 21
24 This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.
25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
Yeah, so ... I saw you wearing that goofy bow tie at the speech you gave, everybody laughed .. but what was important was your message.
Prior to Nicea there were many differences between the churches, doctrines of different churches were wildly different in some cases. When The Church, or Constantine said “This is not the approved doctrine” many bishops went away facing excommunication because they disagreed. Constantine relented and didn't force the new doctrines on all, but later, only about 50 years later it became Church law and refusal to submit to it meant excommunication and even in many cases death.
So, many previously approved scriptures were burned, they didn't agree with Nicea. Many good bishops were lost. Many doctrines that were considered normal were banned.
Many can say that some sect, like the Mormons, or the Baptists or any group are wrong but there is no leader to make it so except for the Pope. Think about it there is no authority on earth in Christianity except for the Bishop of Rome. Yes I know the Mormons have a Prophet, that too is an authority, but who else claims such authority? Nobody. There are boards, and other groups in nearly every church but who can decide this or that doctrine correct or wrong? The Mormons have somebody and the Catholics have somebody. You may not agree with those somebodies but at least they have somebody willing to say yea or nay!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.