Doctrine and the church

From Setting Our Affections Upon Glory by D. M. Lloyd-Jones:

Doctrine comes before fellowship, and unless our fellowship is based upon doctrine, it is not Christian fellowship ...

The church in her great periods has always seen the absolute necessity of defining what she believes in order that wrong teaching might be corrected and driven out. That is why teaching or doctrine must always come before fellowship. There is nothing more dangerous to the true life of the church than reversing this order and putting fellowship before doctrine (55-58)

DeYoung on drawing the line

From The Gospel Coalition blog:

Where and How Do We Draw the Line?

 “In essentials, unity.  In non-essentials, liberty.  In all things, charity.”

Sounds nice, but which are which? Everyone wants to be unified in what really matters, agree to disagree on what isn’t as important, and exercise love in all things.  But no one seems to agree on what really matters a lot, a little, or not at all. As hard as it can be determining the content of our faith, it can be even harder figuring out where to put our fences.

This business of deciding where and how to draw doctrinal lines is incredibly complex. I can’t begin to do all the necessary biblical, theological, historical, and practical exploration in this short article. But perhaps I can sketch an outline of some important considerations.

In that vein, here are seven steps we ought to pursue in establishing doctrinal boundaries. The explanation of the points will get shorter as we move through the list.

1. Establish what are the essentials of the faith. This is the most critical step. We need to know what constitutes the irreducible core of the apostolic gospel. One way to determine the essentials is to look at the Pastoral Epistles (1, 2 Timothy and Titus). In these letters Paul talks a lot about the importance of right doctrine. We can get a good indication of what doctrines matter most by looking at several categories of passages in the Pastorals.

First off we have the “trustworthy sayings” (1 Tim. 1:15; 3:1; 4:9-10; 2 Tim. 2:11-13; Titus 3:4-8). With the possible exception of the saying in 1 Timothy 3, each “trustworthy saying” deals with salvation. We see several interlocking truths: Jesus Christ is a Savior who came to save sinners. Salvation comes not by works but through faith and Spirit-wrought regeneration. Those who truly believe will devote themselves to good works and persevere to the end.

Second, we can look at the various creedal formulas (1 Tim. 1:17; 2:5; 3:16; 6:15-16; Titus 2:11-15). With these verses we get an even better sense of what constitutes the good deposit of the gospel. There is one God and he is unspeakably glorious. There is one mediator, Jesus Christ, who gave his life for ours. Jesus is a great God and Savior who appeared in the flesh and ascended into heaven. He is coming again. We have been saved by the grace of God that we might live holy lives.

Third, Paul oppose certain doctrines associated with false teaching (1 Tim. 1:8-11; 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 2:18; Titus 1:16). These errors boil down to two mistakes: legalism and license. Some false teachers were leading people to perdition by calling darkness light and insisting that a life of sin was consistent with the gospel. On the other hand, others were pushing an unhealthy asceticism and imposing manmade rules. Both mistakes threatened the gospel.

Fourth, we get a glimpse of the essentials of the faith by noting what beliefs are explicitly linked with the gospel and sound doctrine (2 Tim. 1:8-10; 2:8; 2 Tim. 3:14-17). We see in these verses that sound faith is determined by our fidelity to Scripture. We also see that the gospel is a message about Jesus Christ who gave us grace before the ages began and saved us unto works and for immortality. This is all because of grace, not according to our works, but in accordance with God’s eternal purposes.

From these four sets of passages we can begin to sketch what the essentials look like: God is glorious; we are sinners; and Jesus Christ is our Savior and God. Jesus Christ is the son of God and God in the flesh; he died and rose again; he ascended into heaven; he is coming again. Salvation is by sovereign grace, according to the converting power of the Holy Spirit, through faith, not according to works. The Scriptures are all inspired and all true. Jesus Christ saves us from sin, saves us for eternal life, and saves us unto holiness. Any gospel which denies these essentials—or ignores them, or marginalizes them, or leads people to doubt them, or is ashamed of them—is, in effect, a different gospel.

2. Listen to the communion of the saints. Tradition must never trump Scripture. But if we love Scripture we will learn from the traditions of the church. We are not the first people to read the Bible. We are not the only ones who have had the Spirit to help us. God has been at work over the centuries to shape and protect the truth by means of his church (1 Tim. 3:15). This means we should be extra cautious before believing something almost no Christians have believed (like the goodness of homosexuality) and extremely hesitant before rejecting something almost every church has accepted (like the reality of hell). By the same token, we should be less dogmatic about issues that have divided Christians for centuries (like the millennium or the nature of the creation days).

Ancient creeds like the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Chalcedonian Definition are not infallible, but they have served as effective guard rails keeping God’s people on the path of truth. It would take extraordinary new insight or extraordinary hubris to jettison these ancient formulas. They provide faithful summaries of the most important doctrines of the faith. That’s why when the Heidelberg Catechism asks the question “What then must a Christian believe?” it refers us to the Apostles’ Creed, “a creed beyond doubt, and confessed through the world” (Q/A 22, 23).

Similarly, Calvin states (as a kind of throwaway comment) that the “principles of religion” include: “God is one; Christ is God and the Son of God; our salvation rests in God’s mercy; and the like” (Inst. 4.1.12). John Owen provides a similar list, asserting that the “principal fundamentals of Christian religion” affirm “the Lord Christ to be the eternal Son of God, with the use of efficacy of his death, as also the personal subsistence and deity of the Holy Spirit” (Works 15:83). Later he expands the list to include: believing in God the Father, looking for salvation in Christ alone, professing obedience unto him, believing that God raised him from the dead, insisting on personal holiness and “many other sacred truths of the same importance” (84). These short statements—and they are too short!—confirm that we were on the right track with our summaries statements in point one.

3. Distinguish between landing theology and launching theology. Some doctrines represent different conclusions reached from basically the same premises. Other doctrines are starting points that set us on a wildly different trajectory. For example, the difference between postmillennialism and amillennialism is not a difference over first things. The two sides simply disagree how best to interpret a few disputed texts. It’s a matter of landing theology. By contrast, the doctrine of Scripture (to give just one example) is about launching theology. Get that doctrine wrong and we are bound to mess up everything else.

4. Distinguish between the explicit teaching of Scripture and the application of scriptural principles. The Bible clearly teaches that parents train their children in the way of the Lord. It is less clear about how to do that. The Bible does not definitely answer the question of public school, Christian school, or home school. Different Christians make reach different conclusions based on good Christian principles. To make the Bible speak dogmatically on this issue is to force the Bible into all sorts of anachronisms.

5. Distinguish between church existence and church health. Lose some doctrines and you no longer have a church. Lose other doctrines and your church is not everything it should be. Still a problem worth correcting, but you can exercise more patience and gentleness in getting there.

6. Avoid foolish controversies. This is another common theme in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. 1:4-6; 4:7; 6:4, 20; 2 Tim. 2:14, 16, 23; 4:4; Titus 1:14; 3:9). Some doctrinal disputes are worth dying for, while others are just dumb. We should steer clear of theological wrangling that is speculative (goes beyond Scripture), vain (more about being right than being helpful), endless (no real answer is possible or desired), and needless (mere semantics).

7. Allow for areas of disagreement, especially in dealing with “conversion baggage.” The Apostle Paul is most flexible when it comes to traditions of new converts. He is willing for Christians to be convinced in their own mind about certain days and foods (Rom. 14:5). This isn’t because Paul doesn’t know what to think. He knows that these external habits aren’t necessary. We cannot insist on them. But he’s willing to let others continue in them so as not to violate conscience. You may know that drinking alcohol and eating meat on Fridays during Lent are perfectly fine, but it’s not worth upsetting the sincere Christians who still have trouble with such practices.

Over, around, and in all these steps we should put on love—love for God, love for neighbor, love for the truth, and love for the church. The point in drawing lines is not to be right or even courageous. The goal is that we love God by proclaiming and protecting his word and love others by putting up fences to keep out the wolves and nurture the green pastures. The hard work of setting boundaries should not be ignored. God gives us the task for his glory and for our good.

Essential vs. Peripheral Doctrine

From the Crossway Blog:

The ability to discern the relative importance importance of theological issues is vital to the health and unity of the church. There are four categories of importance into which theological
issues can fall:

• Absolutes: Define the core beliefs of Christian faith.


• Convictions: While not core beliefs, these may have significant
  impact on the health and effectiveness of the church.


• Opinions: Views or personal judgments generally not worth
  dividing over.


• Questions: Currently unsettled issues.

The category into which each theological issue falls should be
examined in light of eight different considerations.

1. Biblical clarity


2. Relevance to the character of God


3. Relevance to the essence of the gospel


4. Biblical frequency and significance (how often in Scripture it is taught, and what weight Scripture places upon it)


5. Effects on other doctrines


6. Consensus among Christians (past and present)


7. Effect on personal and church life


8. Current cultural pressure to deny a teaching of Scripture

All of these categories should be evaluated collectively when determining how important an issue is to the Christian faith. Proper discernment between core doctrines and legitimately disputable matters will spare the church from either compromising essential truths or dividing over trivial squabbles.

Modified from Life’s Biggest Questions.

Gospel Doctrine Matters

Gospel doctrine matters because the good news is so full and rich and wonderful that it must be opened like a treasure chest, and all its treasures brought out for the enjoyment of the world.

Doctrine is the description of these treasures.

Doctrine describes their true value and why they are so valuable.

Doctrine guards the diamonds of the gospel from being discarded as mere crystals.

Doctrine protects the treasures of the gospel from the pirates who don’t like the diamonds but who make their living trading them for other stones.

Doctrine polishes the old gems buried at the bottom of the chest.

It puts the jewels of gospel truth in order on the scarlet tapestry of history so each is seen in its most beautiful place ...

The gospel is not mainly about being explained. Explanation is necessary, but it is not primary. A love letter must be intelligible, but grammar and logic are not the point. Love is the point. The gospel is good news. Doctrine serves that. It serves the one whose feet are bruised (and beautiful!) from walking to the unreached places with news: “Come, listen to the news of God! Listen to what God has done! Listen! Understand! Bow! Believe!” (Piper, John. God Is the Gospel: Meditations on God's Love as the Gift of Himself. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008. Print. 22. line breaks mine)

Mood changing truth!

From Peter Cockrell:

“Jesus was not revolutionary because he said we should love God and each other. Moses said that first. So did Buddha, Confucius, and countless other religious leaders we’ve never heard of. Madonna, Oprah, Dr. Phil, the Dali Lama, and probably a lot of Christian leaders will tell us that the point of religion is to get us to love each other. “God loves you” doesn’t stir the world’s opposition. However, start talking about God’s absolute authority, holiness, … Christ’s substitutionary atonement, justification apart from works, the necessity of new birth, repentance, baptism, Communion, and the future judgment, and the mood in the room changes considerably.”

— Michael S. Horton

Christianity and Liberalism I - Doctrine I

This is my second post on Christianity and Liberalism by J Gresham Machen. In Chapter 1 of his work, entitled 'Doctrine', he makes a compelling argument that Christianity cannot be separated from doctrine. As a quick overview, in this chapter Machen skillfully counters those who erroneously feel:
1. Doctrine is irrelevant because all doctrine are basically the same
2. Doctrine is irrelevant because Christianity is a "life" not a "doctrine"
3. The early church did not have doctrine
4. Paul created doctrine apart from or different from the early church
5. Rather than have doctrine we should go "Back to Jesus"

He concludes with 2 warnings about what adhering to the doctrinal basis of Christianity does not mean:
1. It does not mean that if doctrine is sound it makes no difference about life
2. In insisting upon the doctrinal basis of Christianity, that all points of doctrine are equally important.

Early on in reading this chapter, I realized I had a different idea of "doctrine" than Machen. I'm still wrestling with the subtlety of the difference but I think it is a significant difference nonetheless. Here's the difference:

Cherry: Christian doctrine is the belief or set of beliefs held and taught by the Christian church
Machen: Christian doctrine is historical events and the meaning of those events

For the record, I like Machen's definition better than mine.

The differences in our definitions might become more obvious with the following quotes which I found compelling. They are used to punctuate two of the sections mentioned above but here they are in isolation (emphasis mine):

"Christ died for our sins," said the primitive disciples, "according to the Scriptures; he was buried; he has been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." From the beginning, the Christian gospel, as indeed the name "gospel" or "good news" implies, consisted in an account of something that had happened. And from the beginning, the meaning of the happening was set forth; and when the meaning of the happening was set forth then there was Christian doctrine. "Christ died"-that is history; "Christ died for our sins"-that is doctrine. Without these two elements, joined in an absolutely indissoluble union, there is no Christianity.

The narration of the facts is history; the narration of the facts with the meaning of the facts is doctrine. "Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried" - that is history. "He loved me and gave Himself for me" - that is doctrine. Such was the Christianity of the primitive Church

.

Machen continues to weave the 'definition of doctrine' into the 'defence of doctrine' throughout this chapter. I find his definition more robust than mine because it quickly points out the common areas that are attacked in Christian beliefs - the historicity of the events, the meaning of those events and the need for both.

Levels of Doctrine - Great post by Justin Taylor

This was posted today at one of my favourite blogs, Justin Taylor's at The Gospel Coalition.

In answer to that question, I’ve found Erik Thoennes’s perspective to be thoughtful and helpful. The following is from his first essay on Doctrine in the ESV Study Bible.

The ability to discern the relative importance of theological beliefs is vital for effective Christian life and ministry. Both the purity and unity of the church are at stake in this matter. The relative importance of theological issues can fall within four categories:

1. absolutes define the core beliefs of the Christian faith;


2. convictions, while not core beliefs, may have significant impact on the health and effectiveness of the church;


3. opinions are less-clear issues that generally are not worth dividing over; and



4. questions are currently unsettled issues.

These categories can be best visualized as concentric circles, similar to those on a dart board, with the absolutes as the “bull’s-eye”:

Where an issue falls within these categories should be determined by weighing the cumulative force of at least seven considerations:

1. biblical clarity;


2. relevance to the character of God;


3. relevance to the essence of the gospel;



4. biblical frequency and significance (how often in Scripture it is taught, and what weight Scripture places upon it);


5. effect on other doctrines;


6. consensus among Christians (past and present); and


7. effect on personal and church life.

These criteria for determining the importance of particular beliefs must be considered in light of their cumulative weight regarding the doctrine being considered. For instance, just the fact that a doctrine may go against the general consensus among believers (see item 6) does not necessarily mean it is wrong, although that might add some weight to the argument against it. All the categories should be considered collectively in determining how important an issue is to the Christian faith. The ability to rightly discern the difference between core doctrines and legitimately disputable matters will keep the church from either compromising important truth or needlessly dividing over peripheral issues.

(Diagram copyright 2009 Crossway Bibles. Posted with permission.)

Another helpful resource on this is Albert Mohler’s A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity. Dr. Mohler distinguishes between first-order doctrines (a denial of which represents the eventual denial of Christianity itself), second-order doctrines (upon which Bible-believing Christians may disagree, but they create significant boundaries between believers, whether as distinct congregations or denominations), and third-order doctrines (upon which Christians may disagree, but yet remain in close fellowship, even within local congregations).

Finally, I’ve been helped by Michael Wittmer’s excellent book, Don’t Stop Believing: Why Living Like Jesus Is Not Enough. He classifies Christian beliefs into three categories: what you must believe, (2) what you must not reject, and (3) what you should believe. He illustrates this as follows:

In a 2008 interview with Dr. Wittmer, I asked him to explain these categories:

These categories are my attempt to describe the relative importance of Christian beliefs, distinguishing between those beliefs essential for salvation and those essential for a healthy Christian worldview.

In the book of Acts, the bare minimum that a person must know and believe to be saved was that he was a sinner and that Jesus saved him from his sin. As Paul told the Philippian jailer, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved” (Acts 16:29-31; cf. 10:43). This is enough to counter the postmodern innovator argument that we can be saved without knowing and believing in Jesus.

But any thinking convert will inquire further about this Jesus. While he may not know much more at the point of conversion than Jesus is the Lord who has saved him, he will quickly learn about Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, deity and humanity, and relation to the other two members of the Trinity. Anyone who rejects these core doctrines should fear for their soul.

According to the Athanasian Creed, whoever does not believe in the Trinity and the two natures of Jesus is damned. However, since it seems possible for a child to come to faith without knowing much about the Trinity or the hypostatic union (this is likely not the place where most parents begin), I take the Creed’s warning in a more benign way—that we do not need to know and believe in the Trinity and two natures of Christ to be saved, but that anyone who knowingly rejects them cannot be saved.

The final category is important doctrines which genuine Christians may unfortunately misconstrue. I think that every Christian should believe that Scripture is God’s Word, know its story of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation, and know something about the nature of God, what it means to be human, and what Jesus is doing through his church. However, many people have been genuine Christians without knowing or believing these things (though their ignorance or disbelief in these facts significantly diminished their Christian faith).

Thus, I believe that every doctrine in this diagram is crucially important for sound Christian faith. And some are so important that we cannot even be saved without them.

Diagram posted with permission of Zondervan.

Roots and a trunk

"In other words, the strong timber of the tree of evangelicalism has historically been the great doctrines of the Bible—God’s glorious perfections, man’s fallen nature, the wonders of redemptive history, the magnificent work of redemption in Christ, the saving and sanctifying work of grace in the soul, the great mission of the church in conflict with the world and the flesh and the devil, and the greatness of our hope of everlasting joy at God’s right hand. These things once defined us and were the strong fiber and timber beneath the fragile leaves and fruit of our religious experiences. But this is the case less and less. And that is why the waving leaves of success and the sweet fruit of prosperity are not as auspicious to David Wells and Os Guinness as they are to many. It is a hollow triumph, and the tree is getting weaker and weaker while the branches are waving in the sun." (John, Piper,. God's Passion for His Glory. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 1998.78)


I want there to be a GREAT trunk and DEEP roots supporting and nourishing my religious experience. I want the experience too, but, not without the foundation.

Doctrinal threats!

Another great question and answer from the interview I posted about here.

What's one of greatest doctrinal threats facing the church today, doctrinally speaking?
I really do believe we are facing the same doctrinal crises that the Reformers faced, only in some respects it's worse because Rome never questioned the authority of Scripture or the inerrancy of Scripture. Both are widely disputed in Protestantism generally, and increasingly in evangelicalism particularly. If we lose the authority of Scripture and the sufficiency of Scripture, then what's the point? There would be no point in trying to understand what we believe and why we believe it--no point in even talking about a Gospel because there would be no authority for this Gospel. Then justification is as much up for grabs today as it has ever been. According to all the studies I've seen, most American evangelicals believe that they save themselves with God's help. That's the prevailing view in all the studies that have been conducted. Do your best. That's why Jesus is no longer seen as the only way, truth, and life. And that wasn't up for grabs in the Reformation--that Jesus is the only way of salvation--that wasn't up for grabs. The issue in the Reformation was how salvation is applied to us, but everyone believed Jesus was the only way of salvation. Today, that's no longer taken for granted. We have to fight for it.

Religious pluralism has not only made us more aware of other beliefs, which is good, so that we're explicit about what we believe and why, it has made us more vulnerable to the belief that religion is really about morality. It's about being nice. It's about being good. It's about loving each other. It's not really about the intervention of God in human history, assuming our flesh, dying on the cross, and being raised the third day for our justification, His return in judgment, and a real Heaven and a real Hell. To the extent that we've already turned religion into morality--something we do rather than something that God has done for us--to that extent, religious pluralism will mean, not only that there are lots of people of different religions we must respect and to whom we have to witness, but rather that there are all of these wonderful people who have their sources of morality just as we do, and we need to realize that there are different paths to God. Increasingly that's where we're going with a lot of pastors, telling believers that Jesus is the best way of pursuing community and self-sacrifice, but not the One who was sacrificed for our sins and raised for our justification.

Chesterton on post-modernism

"The human brain is a machine for coming to conclusions; if it cannot come to conclusions it is rusty. When we hear of a man too clever to believe, we are hearing of something having almost the character of a contradiction in terms. It is like hearing of a nail that was too good to hold down a carpet; or a bolt that was too strong to keep a door shut...Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas. As he piles doctrine on doctrine and conclusion on conclusion in the formation of some tremendous scheme of philosophy and religion, he is, in the only legitimate sense of which the expression is capable, becoming more and more human. When he drops one doctrine after another in a refined skepticism, when he declines to tie himself to a system, when he says that he has outgrown definitions, when he says that he disbelieves in finality, when, in his own imagination, he sits as God, holding no form of creed but contemplating all, then he is by that very process sinking slowly backwards into the vagueness of the vagrant animals and the unconsciousness of the grass. Trees have no dogmas. Turnips are singularly broad-minded." (Heretics, concluding remarks)

Jonathan Edwards' Thoughts on Controversial Doctrines

This was worth typing out in order to share:

"All the controversial doctrines that he defended were teachings he held simply because he was sure they were taught in Scripture. God's sovereignty in choosing those whom to save, the imputation of Adam's sin to the whole race, the unacceptability in God's eyes of even the best natural virtue, the chasm between the regenerate and the unregenerate, the eternity of punishment for sin, and much else were biblical teaching one might not dare ignore, however mysterious or unreasonable they might seem. Edwards spent much intellectual energy arguing that these revealed doctrines were reasonable, or at least not necessarily unreasonable, and that therefore they could be consistent with the moral government of a benevolent deity.

In that concern - to justify the ways of God to man - Edwards was akin to the philosopher-theologians of his age, yet he radically differed from most of his contemporaries in that he was not willing to judge God by eighteenth-century standards of moral law. God, for Edwards, was not to be understood something like the most virtuous of all humans. Rather, because Edwards took so seriously the immensity of gap between the ways of the infinite and eternal God and the limits of human understanding, he was willing to make the best of the biblical accounts, as counterintuitive as they might sometimes seem. Upon rigorous examinition, he consistently claimed, those accounts could be proved more consistent with reason and experience than any alternatives, even if deep mysteries remained." (Jonathan Edwards: A Life, p478)

I'm afraid I often judge God by my own standards while forgetting the immense gap between His ways and my ways.