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.
And how do you know this? Have you talked with the Early Church Fathers who knew the Apostles personally?
I say “Hogwash!”
I say “Hogwash!”
Then you are calling the apostle John and God liars...
1Jn_5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
If there was more for salvation John couldn't have been telling the truth...But you can bet your life that he was...
There is one church father who knew an apostle personally...That was PolyCarp...And he was as Protestant as I am...
Guess you don’t know my gender. Read my home page here are FR.
It’s a deconstruction argument. By a Mormon stating earthly authorities they try to narrow “the playing field” to two “authorities.” Once that is presumed settled, then it becomes a two way battle of the apostasies:)
I don’t know if you missed the last time I posted John 20 so here it is:
John 20:30-31 NASB
Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
Ok yes, we can know that we have eternal life, great. It’s not exactly clear what kind of eternal life. One with the Lord God creator of the Universe or one of eternal separation and torment, how do you know that?
Yes, those have been written, but there are other teachings that are not written.
I can’t remember exactly what it is, but Paul says that Jesus said something.....to me that is Holy Tradition. No where in the Bible is Christ directly quoted as saying it. I’ll find out exactly what it was and let you know.
Sort of funny — Paul quoting Jesus, and it’s the only place in the Bible that this saying appears.
Because John told us that as well...That's what he was talking about...He wrote these thing so we may know we have eternal life, with God...
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Not perish isn’t clear enough for me. That still sounds like it could mean eternal suffering also.
Is this it? Paul confirms all he learned of the Gospel came by revelation from Christ. I would say that is not tradition but direct revelation, which Paul by his epistles gave to us in writing.
Galatians 1:11-17 NASB
For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it; and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions.
But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.
First, you have to quit perverting the scriptures...
Gal_1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
John did not say that there were other teaching...John said Jesus did other things...
Sort of funny — Paul quoting Jesus, and it’s the only place in the Bible that this saying appears.
What are you talking about...The entirety of the 4 Gospels is apostles quoting Jesus...
I can’t remember exactly what it is, but Paul says that Jesus said something.....to me that is Holy Tradition
Yes it is...Tradition that is past, before Paul wrote his epistles...All tradition Paul spoke of was past tradition...Not a single thing about future tradition after the Apostles were gone...
So maybe it's both...So what??? The point is John said we may know what we need to know about salvation from reading his scriptures...Nothing else is required...
I'm glad you seem to have this all figured out though. I hope for your sake that your right. There is something in those scriptures that mentions something about misleading these little ones. It ain't very pretty.
You are correct A LOT of Scriptures. Usually a good starter kit is read one of the synoptic gospels (Luke is my favorite) then read John, then Acts then Romans. From there enjoy!
No, it is a common thought — sort of like a proverb. At least that is where I thought it came from. I’ll ask and find out since I didn’t take notes at the class.
Thanks for your input though.
**First, you have to quit perverting the scriptures...**
This is something I do not do.
bfl
So exactly what *holy tradition* was it that Paul taught that was not written down but passed along person to person, face to face, by word of mouth?
How do you know its source was Paul?
How do you know it was passed on faithfully, without corruption?
Could you provide the links verifying those claims?
Like in Acts 21:22 and Acts 26:16-18 where Jesus told Paul that He was sending him to preach the gospel to the Gentiles?
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.