What Doctrines Are Fundamental? (Part 3)
December 29th, 2006
(By John MacArthur)
V. The Fundamental Doctrines Are All Summed up in the Person and Work of Christ
Paul wrote, “No man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11). Christ Himself embodied or established every doctrine that is essential to genuine Christianity. Those who reject any of the cardinal doctrines of the faith worship a “christ” who is not the Christ of Scripture.
How are the fundamentals of the faith personified in Christ?
With regard to the inspiration and authority of Scripture, He is the incarnate Word (John 1:1, 14). He upheld the written Word’s absolute authority (Matthew 5:18). Christ Himself established sola Scriptura as a fundamental doctrine when He upbraided the Pharisees for nullifying Scripture with their own traditions: “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’ Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.… You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition” (Mark 7:6-9). Our Lord had much to say about the authority and infallibility of the Word of God.
In the doctrine of justification by faith, it is Christ’s own perfect righteousness, imputed to the believer, that makes the pivotal difference between true biblical justification and the corrupted doctrine of Roman Catholicism and the cults. That is what Paul meant when he wrote, “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Romans 10:4). It is also why Paul wrote that Christ is become to us righteousness (1 Corinthians 1:30), and it is why Jeremiah called Him “The Lord our righteousness” (Jeremiah 23:6). The Lord Himself, Jesus Christ, is our righteousness (Jeremiah 33:16). That is the very essence of justification by faith alone, sola fide.
Of course, all the fundamental doctrines related to the incarnation — the Virgin Birth of Christ, His deity, His humanity, and His sinlessness — are part and parcel of who He is. To deny any of those doctrines is to attack Christ Himself.
The essential doctrines related to His work — His atoning death, His resurrection, and the reality of His miracles — are the very basis of the Gospel (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4; Hebrews 2:3-4). Reject them and you nullify the heart of the Christian message.
The fundamentals of the faith are so closely identified with Christ that the apostle John used the expression “the teaching of Christ” as a kind of shorthand for the set of doctrines he regarded as fundamental. To him, these doctrines represented the difference between true Christianity and false religion.
That is why he wrote, “Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9). Far from encouraging union with those who denied the fundamental truths of the faith, John forbade any form of spiritual fellowship with or encouragement of such false religion (vv. 10-11).
So What?
It has not been my purpose here to attempt to give an exhaustive list of fundamental doctrines. Such a task is beyond the scope of this article. Furthermore, the attempt to precisely identify and number such a list of doctrines would be an extremely difficult thing to do. However, a reasonable list of fundamentals would necessarily begin with these doctrines explicitly identified in Scripture as non-negotiable: the absolute authority of Scripture over tradition (sola Scriptura), justification by faith alone (sola fide), the deity of Christ, and the Trinity.
But what are we to do with this understanding? First of all, 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.
On the other hand, we must recognize that those who have turned away from sound doctrine in matters essential to salvation are condemning themselves. “He who does not believe has been judged already” (John 3:18). Our passion ought to be to proclaim the fundamentals with clarity and precision, in order to turn people away from the darkness of error. We must confront head-on the blindness and unbelief that will be the reason multitudes will one day hear the Lord say, “I never knew you; depart from Me” (Matthew 7:23). Again, it must be stressed that those who act as if crucial doctrines were of no consequence only heap the false teacher’s guilt on themselves (2 John 11).
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).
We must also remember that serious error can be extremely subtle. False teachers don’t wear a sign proclaiming who they are. They disguise themselves as apostles of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:13). “And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness” (vv. 14-15). In view of the current hunger for ecumenical compromise, nothing is more desperately needed in the church right now than a new movement to reemphasize the fundamental articles of the faith.
[…] In the third post he gives one more guideline: […]
For 20 years I enjoyed student membership with ETS (”Evangelical Theological Soceity) but 3 years ago left that, as the group sought for two years to consider “evangelical boundaries” (on the Open Theism issue primarily) but decided not to really declare any fundamentals to curtail Open Theism or other errors. The organization has grown in a numerical way, especially during the last 5-8 years, but seems in my humble opinion as an observer - to be broadening in theological tolerance, due to errant hermeneutics that is tolerated in ETS. I realize ETS is not a local church or seminary and I realize what ETS seeks interpretive and theological dialogue. And I am sensitive to the hesitancy we should give to abandoning organizations because some in that group give challenge to traditional views. Am I wrong to distance myself with such an organization as they broaden in tolerance? Is there a place for a broader theological dialogue, that in this case gives real challenge to the Classical view of God? ETS has in the past disciplined out previous members who they felt significantly departed from the Fundamentals but it seems on the Open issue, the boundaries are given too wide latitude. I know Masters Seminary faculty still attend and read papers at ETS, so they don’t think it’s time yet to leave. And I deeply respect their judgment, which give me pause to ask this question. Am I too restrictive here? Should I fellowship within an organization such as ETS at this time?
Doug,
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.
Hello John, Lou, et al –
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.
The standard of judging doctrine is not based in persons, Larry. It is founded on the Word. John Mac talked of sola scriptura. So did Paul and in his first letter to the Corinthians he made it explicit that periferal doctrines were doctrines of devils. Let me explain.
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.
[…] Helpful Reading John Macarthur: What Doctrines are Essential, Part 3 […]
Hi Thomas —
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.