There is a certain kind of thinking about Christian doctrine, and about many intellectual systems too, called “fortress mentality,” in which people inside the fortress tell people outside the fortress “either you’re in here with us, affirming everything including the following teaching here — X, Y, Z, A, B, C — or you’re outside, out of association with us. If you reject any of them, you will benefit from none of them.”

That kind of thinking leads us to make conclusions about who is fundamental, or even who is saved, in the case of Christianity, given that assumption. In other words, it makes pronoucements about people’s destinies, which John warns against doing.

My post brought up that there is a difference between that and saying that teachings X, Y, Z, A, B, C are what defines Christian doctrine and separates it from non-Christian doctrine.

Let’s take your examplar, Thomas, I gather it being a doctrine of rapture. Is a person’s specific teaching about the rapture part of (a) what is necessary for the teaching to be a Christian teaching at all? and (b) what is necessary for the person to be a saved person at all?

The presupposition behind this thinking is that Christians tend to, when we hear X, Y, Z, A, B, C, believe it. Unfortunately, people turn this into an iron rule of the contrapositive: all who do not believe X, Y, Z, A, B, C, are not Christians. Fortress mentality.

There is only one foundation that can be laid, that is Christ. You might want to look at this foundation as the “fundamentals”. Here I would caution you, however. The compilers of the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith were careful to point out that all doctrine is fundamental and that if it was not fundamental it was not doctrine. Periferal doctrine infects core doctrine just like leaven levens the whole lump. Paul said the same. Each man who builds on the foundation must ensure that what he builds will endure. In other words it must be built out of the same nature as the foundation which can never be moved. It should not be corrupted, for that corruption will eventually divide the foundation. If he builds with falsehood, wood, hay and stubble, it will not endure.

There are many Scripures that go along with this. Paul’s teaching to Timothy that all Scripture is God breathed, profitable for training in godliness. Surely then, it is of the utmost importance that we diligently seek that which God approves of so that we are not ashame. Paul goes on in Corinthians, Christ is not divided, is he? Opinion theology is carnal he says, and in another place that the word of God is not given for opinion, but men of old spoke as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. Opinions cause divisions and not in a good way.

The question is not, and should never have become, “what is truth.” The idea of soul competency and freedom of conscience has warped the fundamental foundation, so that now nothing fits and everything is force to be accepted under the rubric of “Unity in the essentials, libery in the non-essentials.” Paul would not have any of this poppy-cock! Jesus warned us that we would be held accountable for every idle word spoken. Simply put, if the words you speak do not work they do not return to the Lord. The words He speaks do not return to him void, and his children hear His voice and the words that He gives them they keep and speak!

Paul left us with an answer. Rather than speak what we do not know to be true, he said, “Now these things, brethren I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for yor sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.” Simple rule, if it is not a fundamental, do not say it. You see we worship what we know. What we do not, is not worthy and the Father seeks those who will worship him in Spirit and in Truth. The reason that there are so many “periferals” is that there are so many people in the church today that believe they have a right to their own opinion. And, men of authority like John Mac, can, because of their position corrupt their followers simply by not being prudent. Unfortunately, James is correct, there was only one perfect man who could control his tongue. Still, we have a command to be pure in speach, not double minded but holding the truth with a clear conscience.

Take for instance John Mac’s doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture. Is it truth, or a lie. If it is truth, then all other positions are a lie. Now, a man might die for the truth, but what man would be willing to die for a lie. Does the pre-tribulation rapture teach in accord with that truth? How about the fundamental teaching on the need to perservere in the face of persecutions as it teaches us the perserverance of the saints, a fundamental of the Faith. And, Jesus did not give us opinions but died for the truth and when he talked to others about it he called them liars if they did not receive it. The sword of the Lord divides in a good way, it does not bring unity where there is no love and where there is no truth there is no love. So, we must take care about what we speak, because to tell someone our opinions and to tell it as truth is to hate our brother. It is far better to remain silent than to speak at all, for even a fool is considered wise when he remains silent.

There are no such things as non-fundamentals. It is a fundamental error to say that there are.

I thought the three articles were well articulated, and avoided the tacit use often put to standards of this type, the judging of a servant of another.

For example, John says “we should resist any temptation to wield these doctrines like a judge’s gavel that consigns multitudes to eternal doom. We must not set ourselves up as judges of other people’s eternal fate.”

Amen. There is a great amount of wisdom and balance in the following, also: “We have no right to pronounce a sentence of eternal doom against anyone (John 5:22). But by the same token, we have no business receiving just anyone into the communion and fellowship of the church. We should no more forge spiritual bonds with people whose religion is fundamentally in error than we would seek fellowship with those guilty of heinous sin. To do so is tantamount to the arrogance shown by the Corinthians, who refused to dismiss from their fellowship a man living in the grossest kind of sin (1 Corinthians 5:1-3).”

I think whole books could be written on the dynamic of associating with sinners (Lk 15:2) while not forging spiritual bonds with them — in this very area, of not bonding with them on the basis of any compromise on fundamentals.

I’m with you. Without having officially become a member, but reading things from ETS over the years, it’s apparent their definition of “evangelical” is far from the historic theological definition. If I were in the scholarly world I might see the need to continue to contend. As a pastor and author committed to sound hermeneutics and exposition, my heart breaks for their departure from contending for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. It’s a matter of your own conscience, but I see no need to feel badly for choosing not to continue.