What Doctrines Are Fundamental? (Part 1)
December 27th, 2006
(By John MacArthur)
How can a Christian determine which doctrines are essential and which are not?
To begin with, the strongest words of condemnation in all the New Testament are aimed at false teachers who corrupt the Gospel. Therefore the Gospel message itself must be acknowledged as a primary point of fundamental doctrine.
But what message will determine the content of our gospel testimony? Let’s turn to Scripture itself and attempt to lay out some biblical principles for determining which articles of faith are truly essential to authentic Christianity.
I. All Fundamental Articles of Faith Must Be Drawn from the Scriptures
First, if a doctrine is truly fundamental, it must have its origin in Scripture, not tradition, papal decrees, or some other source of authority. Paul reminded Timothy that the Scriptures are “able to make thee wise unto salvation” (2 Timothy 3:15, KJV). In other words, if a doctrine is essential for salvation, we can learn it from the Bible. The written Word of God therefore must contain all doctrine that is truly fundamental. It is able to make us “adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17). If there were necessary doctrines not revealed in Scripture, those promises would ring empty.
The psalmist wrote, “The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul” (Psalm 19:7). That means Scripture is sufficient. Apart from the truths revealed to us in Scripture, there is no essential spiritual truth, no fundamental doctrine, nothing essential to soul-restoration. We do not need to look beyond the written Word of God for any essential doctrines. There is nothing necessary beyond what is recorded in God’s Word.
This, of course, is the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura -- Scripture alone. According to the Bible itself, no supposed spiritual authority outside “the sacred writings” of Scripture can give us wisdom that leads to salvation. No papal decrees, no oral tradition, no latter-day prophecy can contain truth apart from Scripture that is genuinely fundamental.
II. The Fundamentals Are Clear in Scripture
Second, if an article of faith is to be regarded as fundamental, it must be clearly set forth in Scripture. No “secret knowledge” or hidden truth-formula could ever qualify as a fundamental article of faith. No cryptic key is necessary to unlock the teaching of the Bible.
The truth of God is not aimed at learned intellectuals; it is simple enough for a child. “Thou didst hide these things from the wise and intelligent and didst reveal them to babes” (Matthew 11:25, KJV). The Word of God is not a puzzle. It does not speak in riddles. It is not cryptic or mysterious. It is plain and obvious to those who have spiritual ears to hear. “The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple” (Psalm 19:7).
The point is not that every fundamental article of faith must be supported with an explicit proof text. The doctrine of the Trinity, for example, is certainly essential to true Christianity-and it is very clear in Scripture-but you will find no comprehensive statement of the Trinity from any single passage of Scripture.
This does not mean that a doctrine must be non-controversial in order to be considered a fundamental article. Some would argue that the only test of whether something is essential to true Christianity is whether it is affirmed by all the major Christian traditions. By that rule, hardly anything of any substance would remain to distinguish the Christian Gospel from the “salvation” offered by pagan morality or Islamic theology. “There is much truth in the remark of Clement of Alexandria; ‘No Scripture, I apprehend, is so favourably treated, as to be contradicted by no one.’” (Herman Witsius, Sacred Dissertations on the Apostles’ Creed [Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1993 reprint], 1:21)
(To be continued tomorrow)
“The point is not that every fundamental article of faith must be supported with an explicit proof text. The doctrine of the Trinity, for example, is certainly essential to true Christianity-and it is very clear in Scripture-but you will find no comprehensive statement of the Trinity from any single passage of Scripture”.
This is very important and needs some unpacking. It is the hallmark of the cults, false teachers and heretics that Scripture must express a doctrine in a particular way, or using a particular set of words, or by direct statement, for it to count as biblical. But that is the way to twist Scripture and to pervert its meaning. As a way of denying orthodoxy “explicit proof texting” has quite some pedigree. It is of course not the same thing as establishing a doctrine by exegeting Scripture and summarizing and formulating the results into a doctrinal statement that the church then confesses and teaches (which I take to be John MacArthur’s point here).
As this topic is the cornerstone of my own blog, I am anxious to see the rest of this series.
[...] from Pulpit Magazine : [...]
[...] Go here to read the first in this series of posts. [...]
I find it interesting that the gentleman and scholar who wrote the book (several books really) on the necessity of expository preaching (i.e. contextual-literal interpretation), would allow any doctrine to be considered non-essential.
What I’m getting at is that the basis of ALL error in doctrine comes from not having a proper exposition and interpretation of Scripture – an argument Dr. MacArthur himself appears to make in books like ‘The Battle for the Beginning’. Thus, the first and foremost way to determine if someone is a brother with whom we should be yoked is not to look at their individual doctrines, but first to examine how they go about interpretting Scripture to arrive at their doctrines.
We would do well to practice discernment at that level before approaching the issues of specific doctrines. This is what Dr. MacArthur (in essence) so excellently preaches in books like ‘The Battle for the Beginning’ and the comparison made in the Appendix of (IIRC) ‘The Gospel According to the Apostles’ b/w covenant and dispensational theologies.
Of course it would then be much tougher for a group like Together for the Gospel to include (ie yoke themselves with) a specific someone whose ‘Pastors College’ and founding church are led by self-described third-wave reformed-charismatics that follow supersessionist replacement theology and a liberal interpretation of Scripture. That is, the group of churches and the training college headed by this unnamed individual openly follow the false teachings of third-wave charismaticism and also believe the Church replaces Israel to the exclusion of Israel (supersessionism/replacement theology). These dangerous doctrines are completely antithetical to the contextual-literal interpretation of Scripture that MacArthur argues – and I agree – is the only valid way to approach and understand the Word of God. It is also antithetical to what is taught by the Master’s Seminary for that matter (cf Dr. Vlach’s website, specifically the supersessionism articles).
This inconsistency between Dr. MacArthur’s excellent preaching and the questionable action (as part of T4G) to accept that unnamed person as a member of their group greatly concerns me, as there is NEVER a valid reason to compromise the truth, even for the perceived sake of joining together for “the gospel”.
God never asks us to disobey Him in one area in order to further another area – that would be a very basic contradiction of God’s immutable, perfect, and noncontradictory character. Dr. MacArthur so aptly argues that having a proper high view of Scripture stands and falls on accepting every word of it as truth (something anyone following false doctrines via a faulty interpretation is unable to do).
There is also the matter of the gospel preached at the church that was once senior-pastored by the unnamed person mentioned earlier. In the years I attended, it was rare to ever hear a proper emphasis on God’s holiness and wrath and man’s depravity and sin, while plenty of emphasis was given to grace and mercy. The former were pratically brushed aside and the emphasis was almost wholly on the latter.
Dr. MacArthur in many of his writings and messages, as well as the Master’s Seminary in its teaching, does a great job of making clear the need for sinners to hear about their deadly position before a holy and just God before they can truly understand what the grace and mercy of God really is and why we all so desperately need it. Instead of (or at least long before) “look what Jesus did for you, yay, let’s all clap and sing praises” we must first address “this is who God is (as He has revealed himself in Scripture) and this is who we are (as God has shown us to be in Scripture – ie dead in our trespasses and sins, the weight, cost, and grievous nature of sin, etc).”
My point is this: This goes to show is that the failure at the basic level of interpretation DOES INDEED affect every area of doctrine right down to the very proclaimation of the gospel. Certainly someone can write books that do a decent job of preaching an accurate gospel, yet with rare exception every Sunday “celebration” service at their home church can still be absent the powerful saving message of the gospel that God has uses to convict – namely the message of the sinner’s place before a holy God.
Now this critique is not in any way claiming anyone is unsaved – quite clearly one can be saved yet in error on certain areas of doctrine. Rather, the point is that it IS necessary to have a proper basis for interpretation of Scripture agreed upon by all leaders who are joining together, else yoking oneself with others can only be a detrimental influence to the continued proper interpretation of Scripture and in the end even the very gospel that is proclaimed.
In Christ,
Jay
What Doctrines Are Fundamental? (part 1)…
To begin with, the strongest words of condemnation in all the New Testament are aimed at false teachers who corrupt the Gospel. Therefore the Gospel message itself must be acknowledged as a primary point of fundamental doctrine.
But what message will …
Jay: “I find it interesting that the gentleman and scholar who wrote the book (several books really) on the necessity of expository preaching (i.e. contextual-literal interpretation), would allow any doctrine to be considered non-essential.”
The expression non-essential doesn’t mean “unimportant.” It means, “not of the essence”—so that someone who denies or corrupts an essential doctrine of the faith is not to be regarded as an authentic Christian, because he denies the very essence of truth itself.
You yourself tacitly acknowledge this distinction when you write, “quite clearly one can be saved yet in error on certain areas of doctrine.”
I would reply that it is equally clear that there are certain doctrines which cannot be denied without incurring damnation (Galatians 1:8-9; 2 John 7-11). That’s what we mean when we refer to these doctrines as “essential.”
It’s dangerous not to recognize this distinction. Those who insist that all truth is equally essential will end up like the cult of “a true church” (an egregious misnomer, but that is what they call themselves)—anathematizing everyone who doesn’t dot every i and cross every t exactly the way some self-styled prophet demands.
Phil: Thanks for the reply.
My concern is not directly with declaring certain doctrines as “essential”: It is with skipping to that step without first examining how the person we are evaluating is interpreting Scripture.
Quote: “You yourself tacitly acknowledge this distinction when you write, “quite clearly one can be saved yet in error on certain areas of doctrine.””
Except that my point is just that: People can differ on certain areas of doctrine and still be saved.
However, while they would be welcome to attend our hypothetical church, it would likely not be appropriate to yoke together with such people in a group such as T4G, where their presence would only serve to weaken the very purpose of such an organization, given that a failure to properly interpret/exegete Scripture does indeed impact everything right down to the very essence of the gospel proclaimed, let alone other doctrine.
[...] John Macarthur: What Doctrines are Fundamental, part 1 [...]
It’s an interesting question. I, for one, do not believe that there is any such thing as a “non-essential” doctrine. Jesus said that we are to live “by every word the proceeds out of the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4). While certain beliefs won’t disqualify one from being saved, they are still important. The real question isn’t whether a doctrine is essential or non-essential, but rather how much difference can one allow on a particular issue and still be considered Christian.
For example, most would hold eschatology in general to be a “non-essential” doctrine. On the surface, that would be correct. I, myself, am a postmillennial preterist. I believe I read somewhere that John MacArthur was a Premillennial Dispensationalist. Does that mean that one of is is unsaved, or less Christian than the other? Of course not. But if does mean that one of us is wrong.
But, more to the point, are all eschatological beliefs “non-essential”? What about hyper-preterism, which denies the Second Advent, or the bodily resurrection on the last day? Can this be considered a Christian belief? See what I mean?
Christians of various denominations can (and will) have different beliefs about certain doctrines. However, there are doctrines that are recognized as Christian, and those that are heresy. Defining which is which can be a tough taks, but most necessary.
God Bless,
PL
[...] Here are the links to these posts for further reading: Post 1 Post 2 Post 3 [...]
[...] Part 1 [...]
[...] Part 1 [...]