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

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.

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.

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 …

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