Fellowship or Fight?
June 11th, 2007
(By Phil Johnson)
This is a classic post adapted from my original weblog. It’s a theme that correlates closely with things I have said in my seminars on fundamentalism at past Shepherds’ Conferences.
One thing you’ll quickly notice if you make even a casual study of historical theology is this: the history of the church is a long chronicle of doctrinal development that runs from one profound controversy to the next.
In one sense it is sad that the history of the church is so marred by doctrinal conflicts, but in another sense that is precisely what the apostles anticipated. Even while the New Testament was still being written, the church was contending with serious heresies and dangerous false teachers who seemed to spring up everywhere. This was so much a universal problem that Paul made it one of the qualifications of every elder that he be strong in doctrine and able to refute those who contradict (Titus 1:9). So the church has always been beset by heretics and false teachings, and church history is full of the evidence of this.
Obviously, then, we who love the truth cannot automatically shy away from every fight over doctrine. Especially in an era like ours when virtually every doctrine is deemed up for grabs, Christians need to be willing and prepared to contend earnestly for the faith.
On the other hand, even in an obsessively “tolerant” age such as ours, the opposite danger looms large as well. There are some people who are always spoiling for a fight over little matters, and no issue is too trivial for them to overlook. It seems they are looking for reasons to take offense, and if you’re not careful what you say or how you say it, they’ll throw a major hissy. More often than not, it’s an insignificant issue, an unintentional slight, or an inadvertently indelicate “tone” that provokes the tantrum. (Ironically, these same folks are sometimes more than willing to tolerate major doctrinal errors in the name of “charity.”)
Scripture includes all the following commands: “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:18). “It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 John 10-11). “I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Romans 16:17). “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations” (Romans 14:1). “Follow peace with all men, and holiness” (Hebrews 12:14).
Clearly, there are two extremes to be avoided. One is the danger of being so narrow and intolerant that you create unnecessary divisions in the body of Christ. The other is the problem of being too broad-minded and sinfully tolerant—so ecumenically minded that you settle for a shallow, false unity with people whom we are commanded to avoid or whose errors we are morally obligated to refute.
It would seem that the only way to be faithful to all the above commands is to have a sound and biblical understanding of how to distinguish between core doctrines and peripheral ones.
But search for serious material that carefully discusses biblical guidelines for making such distinctions wisely, and you’ll come up mostly dry. This is an issue I fear most Christians have not considered as soberly and carefully as we should, and it would be my assessment that one of the crying needs of the church in this age of mindless postmodern subjectivity is a clear, careful, and thorough biblical understanding of when it’s time to fight and when it’s time to fellowship.
Few subjects interest me more than this. It seems a pretty obvious and foundational issue for the church and her leaders to settle. You might think the early fundamentalists ought to have done extensive work on the subject, but as far as I can see, they didn’t. They treated several key doctrines as fundamental, based mainly on what happened to be under attack by the modernists, and they declared themselves devoted to “the fundamentals.”
But they didn’t always keep very clear focus on the distinction between what was fundamental and what was not. As a result, later generations of fundamentalists often fought and fragmented over issues no one could rationally argue were “fundamental.” Predictably, the fundamentalist movement slowly collapsed on itself.
There are some valiant efforts currently underway to improve and preserve the best remnants of the fundamentalist movement. I sincerely wish them success. But it seems to me that unless the brightest minds and most careful theologians in that movement are willing to go back to this basic question and carefully think through the biblical and theological rationale for the original distinction between fundamental and secondary truths, certain things that ought to be clear will remain murky, and fundamentalism will be doomed to repeating cycles of failure.
If there’s anyone left in the “evangelical movement” who is truly evangelical in the historic sense, the same thing applies to them, by the way.
Great post! I so heartily agree that this is one of the church’s desperate needs. We should not pass judgment on “disputable” matters (Romans 14).
But the only two matters explicitly mentioned in Romans 14 are foods to eat, and days to observe. Certainly there are others, but the question is, what are they?
Mode of baptism? Remarriage after divorce? Music styles? Church government? Carpet color? Eschatology? When should I refute my brother’s error, and when should I overlook it?
It seems that the ultimate disputable matter is: Which issues are disputable matters? Can you point us to some works which do a good job of explaining why some issues are fundamental and others secondary?
Thanks,
Gary
[...] Phiul Johnson at Pulpit Magazine: There are some valiant efforts currently underway to improve and preserve the best remnants of the fundamentalist movement. I sincerely wish them success. But it seems to me that unless the brightest minds and most careful theologians in that movement are willing to go back to this basic question and carefully think through the biblical and theological rationale for the original distinction between fundamental and secondary truths, certain things that ought to be clear will remain murky, and fundamentalism will be doomed to repeating cycles of failure. [...]
Living and ministering in South America, our ‘issues’ are totally different. Conviction and preference/interpretation vary dramatically between cultures. I have decided that if there is a 9mm at my head and they say deny Christ or die. That is a conviction over a ‘fundamental’ truth. If they were to say… ‘Use the “Reina Valera Actualizada” or die that would be a preference I could adapt to to avoid lead poisoning. When I have to decide between whether to stand and ‘fight’ or just let it go I use that thought in my mind and ask if it is something that God would want my ministry to end over.
Another criteria that I use is that after preaching in three different cultures and languages. If I can’t preach the same message in all three cultures and languages I must doubt it’s validity as a fundamental truth of the church.
Thanks Phil for this post. This is such an important issue. Like Gary, if you could recommend some good resources that discuss this issue further it would be much appreciated.
Three years ago I stopped my 20 year membership with ETS (the Evangelical Theological Society) over this issue, as they had grown so large in membership but when its core conservative heritage was threatened, they would not define even the most basic Biblical boundary. Indeed the doctrines of inerrancy and the Trinity (the only two for the ETS, in their broad goal of scholarly dialogue) are held by Open Theist and Roman Catholics both of whom hold “essential” error central doctrines. I read Open Theist and Roman Catholic theology, seeking to objectively and humbly understand what they are saying but unfortunately as best as I can determine – they both are heretical in fundamental error. I think it is clear in Scripture that we not only refute error but we also distance ourselves (i.e., fellowship) from those who teach fundamental error. Thanks Phil for your needed post.
Phil,
Looks like you’ve got a topic for a new book! Can’t wait to see it buddy.
MIKE
Phil,
Got time for a response from the Fundamentalist Right? Four points.
(1) You are absolutely correct that we need to rearticulate the notion of fundamentals for our generation. “We” here includes both fundamentalists and other evangelicals. The notion of fundamentals has fallen on hard times. Some of us are doing ongoing work in this area (e.g., see my chapter in “Pilgrims on the Sawdust Trail,” ed. by Timothy George). We welcome interaction.
(2) The original generation of fundamentalists (c 1920) spent little time articulating the notion of fundamentals because it was part of their mental furniture. The idea of fundamentals had received significant treatment by such disparate thinkers as Calvin, Arminius, Turretin, and Bunyan. It was developed at length by the Princeton theologians, and especially by the Hodges. It had just received significant attention in the series known as “The Fundamentals,” which may be viewed as an attempt to articulate and explore certain fundamental doctrines that were coming under attack.
(3) The recognition of fundamental doctrines does not mean that all non-fundamentals are merely incidental. Doctrines and practices display varying levels of importance. Some non-fundamentals are more important than others. The failure to recognize and reckon upon these varying levels of importance has led to disastrous consequences both for fundamentalists and for other evangelicals.
(4) At the moment, mainstream fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals are not far apart in their understanding of these issues. We weigh most doctrines approximately in the same way. One difference is over the charismatic movement, which almost all fundamentalists see as a rather serious error. A larger difference is over the question of what to do with brethren (evangelicals who believe the fundamentals) who are willing to make common cause with apostates (the enemies of Christ) in the Lord’s work. To be a bit anachronistic, the main difference between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals is still over what to do with the likes of Billy Graham. You can’t say that the fundamentals are definitive for Christianity, and then act like cooperation with apostates is no big deal.
The fact remains that mainstream fundamentalists today have as much (more?) in common with conservative evangelicals as they do with professed fundamentalists who proclaim the re-inspiration of the King James, who hold a magical view of the blood of Jesus, or who engage in the tactics of personal destruction (whispering campaigns, half-truths, and innuendos) against their opponents.
Kevin T. Bauder
“Clearly, there are two extremes to be avoided.”
And the non-extremes Christians will have personalities that vary, and are geared toward one side or the other. I’m more tuned to avoid conflict, so I need a brother along side me he doesn’t mind conflict so much, and may even enjoy it. This will usually help in contending against the two extremes. And it’s essential that the elders of a church have these contrasting and complementing traits as well. Makes for a healthy church.
Thanks for a good post. Well spoken words.
It is too bad that the Fundamentalists cannot be as balanced as your “Reformed Baptist” denomination. Based on the Reformed Baptist history and present practice, the Fundamentals to them are the council of Dort and all others are marginal heretics. Perhaps you should be more concerned with them, since that is your group, than Fundamentalists. Your own writings have been far more pugilistic than the historic Fundamentalists.
Kevin Bauder, President of Central Baptist Seminary, Minneapolis, makes some very good points.
Dear Phil & Nathan:
With your permission I am going to link your readers to an article by Charles H. Spurgeon, which I posted at Sharper Iron on May 29th. I prefaced the article with a few comments.
In light of Dr. MacArthur’s recent publication, which addresses the Growth /Seeker & especially the Emergent movement, I believe your readership will appreciate my brief notes, and especially Spurgeon’s discussion.
This is the link to The Drift of the Times by C. H. Spurgeon.
http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=5762
Kind regards,
Lou Martuneac
Phil, this seems to be your cardinal proposition:
“It would seem that the only way to be faithful to all the above commands is to have a sound and biblical understanding of how to distinguish between core doctrines and peripheral ones.”
I have yet to see anything written that shows this is a Biblical doctrine, and Scripture actually teaches something exact opposite. The only dealing with this that I have read, and partly from you, quilts together a few random verses, ripped from their context to invent this essential versus tertiary teaching view. You study “church history,” which essentially is Roman Catholic history (including the patristics, most of which were unconverted baptismal regenerationists) and then Protestant state church history, to originate your position. I applaud your honesty in indicating that you haven’t found anyone espousing this in what you have read. Shouldn’t that be tell-tale? Even though your historical research hasn’t found the primary-secondary view taught, you seem to cull it anyway from your observation that men fought over doctrine in church history. It is quite a leap to move from “they-fought-over-doctrine” to “we-must-rank-doctrines-for-the-sake-of-unity.” I can appreciate your desire to be somehow consistent or justify what you do with this doctrine, but you’ll have to put it in to get it out.
I have dealt with what I call reductionism over at my blog in an ongoing series up to part five. I call it left-wing legalism. I believe it was invented by the Pharisees. They reduced God’s law to a few fundamentals in order to keep the law on their own. I don’t think everyone does this legalistically. I don’t think you do it that way, Phil. Some do it in order somehow follow their understanding of 1 Cor. 12:25: “That there should be no schism in the body.”
I believe this manifests two problems:
1) An unscriptural understanding of unity;
2) An unscriptural understanding of the church or body of Christ—erring from a Platonic, Augustinian belief about the nature of the church.
The dangers are many, but this has been long, so I’ll give one and stop there. It actually encourages professing Christians to be disobedient to God’s Word.
“It is too bad that the Fundamentalists cannot be as balanced as your “Reformed Baptist” denomination.”
I’m very blessed almost evry time I discuss secondary issues, such as baptism mode, infant baptism, eschatology, and sanctification by faith alone, with reformed Baptist more so than I am with non-reformed baptist.
What’s up with that?
Kent,
I’m not sure what your view is. Do you think that all doctrines are just as essential, or is it the opposite and doctrine isn’t really that important?
“Even while the New Testament was still being written, the church was contending with serious heresies and dangerous false teachers who seemed to spring up everywhere. This was so much a universal problem that Paul made it one of the qualifications of every elder that he be strong in doctrine and able to refute those who contradict (Titus 1:9).”
The ONLY doctrine preached by Jesus and the apostles was love – love of God and love of fellow man. Not a weak, sentimental love but the meek love which is the sign of a truly great character, the only kind of love whereby it is possible to ‘love your enemies’.
The simplicity and purity of this teaching did not prove sufficient to the Graeco-Roman church ‘fathers’ and still does not prove sufficient today. When the scriptures fell into Greek, and subsequently Latin, hands, the teachings underwent a change in accordance with the predilections of those particular nationalities. Because their minds were set in the key of a different structure, they projected into the scriptures their own prevailing national religions.
Doctrines were crystallised by the disputes among early Gentile church fathers who looked into the Pool of Narcissus (the scriptures), saw themselves imaged there, and then projected this, their own image, upon the world through the medium of ecclesiastical councils called by Roman Emperors from 325AD onwards.
“…serious heresies and dangerous false teachers…” have held sway for almost two thousand years. The major church doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation are false and ‘unscriptural’ – demonstrably so – but they have become so ingrained that most Christians do not even think to question whether these are indeed the teachings of the Hebrew Jesus and the Hebrew Apostles regarding the Hebrew God YHVH.
Christendom bears the image, not of the mind of Jesus and the character of the Supreme Being, but of early Gentile theology.
I take this statement very seriously indeed: “It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).
Some excellent thoughts are shared here. As a fundamentalist, I believe that true fundamentalists share many similarities to conservative evangelicals. A few things unite them: their love for God, their loyalty to the Word, and the legacy they honor (both sides use Hodge, Machen, Spurgeon, Sunday, Bunyan, Edwards, and other variaties of men as resources). Wow, that was alliterated, so it must be true!
Anyway, I really appreciate the remarks by Kevin Bauder. Also, Phil’s comments on divisive issues were interesting. Fact is, fundamentalism was born out of Baptists, Presbyterians, and others coming together to fight modernism. If only we’d recognize that now…
Think of two circles – one is fundamentalism and the other evangelicalism. Each has an extreme side. On the extreme left of the evangelicalism circle, you see liberalism. Perhaps it is embodied in the form of Billy Graham (he’s not just ecumenical, he’s denied cardinal doctrine), Joel Osteen, Clark Pinnock, Kenneth Copeland, etc. On the extreme right of the fundamentalist side, you see extremism. Perhaps it is emobdied in Peter Ruckman, Sam Gipp, Texe Marrs, Riplinger, and snippets of Jack Schaap. However, within the evangelical circle there is a group of people who are guided by the Word of God. You have John MacArthur, John Piper, James MacDonald, Mark Dever, etc. Within the fundamentalist circle there are also people guided by God’s Word: Charles Keen, Paul Chappell, Kevin Bauder, and David Cloud. None of these men, of course, agree fully with one another, but they all subscribe to a theological system fully guided by the Word of God. I submit that we focus on this synthesis of these two circles, which overlap to form one circle (I wish I had a chalkboard here), which is made up of men and movements that are founded on the God’s Word. Perhaps it should bear a distinct name. Not a very detailed name like “the Conservative Evangelical Non Extreme Fundamentalist Alliance.” Rather, a name as simple as Biblicism. After all, that’s what it is.
Biblicism is founded on the God’s Word, and moves neither to the right hand, nor the left.
A classic confrontation on this stimulating and thought provoking issue (in the real world of politics) occurred on tonight’s `Hardball’ when the(self proclaimed Catholic) host of the MSNBC show confronted and (effectively) personally attacked Governor Huckabee for his public and eloquent profession of faith ( at the NH debate) on Creation and how men and women were created by God in his image. Not only did the secular progessive host shape and limit the scope of his questions (diatribe) to present his guest as a ‘Neaderthal” (trying to relive the Scopes trial) but he essentially left Huckabee no room or even remotely adequate time to
rebut the “hatchetjob” (character assasination) . Instead of counter-attacking the host for being a smug, arrogant media elitist and propogandist for corporate special interests, Huckabee, smiled and stayed on the affable defensive trying to avoid losing votes instead of attacking the blatant affront to the Christian faith. The vast majority of Americans believe that the workd was created in six days by God who rested on the 7th day. Whether those “days” lasted milions and millions of years would not be inconsistent with fundamental Christian philosophy, a point Huckabee tried to make but was not permitted to do so to the nationally televised audience. In a real sense, Huckabee failed the test of leadership essential for an American President. He was personally challenged on faith and retreated into a politically correct defense, rather than an aggressive (if not bellicose) defense of fundamental core beliefs. Similarly, for the fundamentalists to give Romney a free pass in identifying himself as a “Christian” is another obvious example of the spineless, if not cowardly timidity that now afflicts and paralyzes the fundamentalist movement. It’s long overtime for articulate and dynamic young preachers to “attack” and keep attacking, just as General Patton urged….to utterly defeat (through the power of the Holy Spirt and the power of the Word) or else noone come home alive!
David Erlichman
Harrisburg, PA
Kevin & Damien,
As I non-fundamentalist, I read your comments and shout, I agree. Kevin, I often enjoy your articles at Sharper Iron as well.
Bob & Kent,
I read your comments and weep. Just because Phil isn’t “in your camp” suddenly he embraces Billy Graham? Geez! Yes, I know that you guys have gone round and round with Phil on degrees of “separation” but can you put down the guns for a bit an examine what he is saying. To an outsider, you illustrate exactly what he is pointing out in the article.
Hayden,
When his pastor exposes Charismatic error, I don’t assume he’s shooting at Charismatics. It was Kevin who brought in Billy Graham, not Bob or I. I hope that matters. 
Why can’t we talk about Scripture and doctrine without assuming we’re shooting at someone? You might be the only guy doing any shooting. I’d be glad for him to show me how what I wrote is wrong.
Mike,
I don’t see the essential/non-essential concept in Scripture. I do see “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.”
Hello Sir or Madam,
I would like to share with you about my experience. I was very disappointed to see the happen so it created us to leave the church of brethren in Frederick. I share with you about the membership & Lord’s super issues. It bothers me about the fellowship or fight. My main reason is to care and follow what the Bible’s teaching.
I had been taught for two years while I didn’t become a membership from this church. The Holy Spirit touched me about the membership issue. I asked the pastor who is working to the deaf ministry about this one. He responded me that the membership isn’t important because he strongly believes it is not a way for the people to enter into the small gate that is the membership. It is opportunity for people to serve and teach during sunday school classes or the children ministry or the Bible studying. I was puzzled to hear what his phrase was to emphasize that the membership is an option for people who are interested to become the membership. I tried to explain him about several verses are strongly encouraging us to be the membership of the church so it is great opportunity for us to serve or teach with others even allow the pastor to care or discipline wit the believers. Include protect as the sherpaerd also protect what the believers’ standing on the doctrines. He refused to agree with me about this issue.
By the way, I noticed that the church gave two times in the year for Lord’s super. I was puzzled about it and had used the Lord’super every months. I decided to talk with the pastor about it. He completely agreed with my good points but he prefers to follow what the church of brethren’s decison for unity’s sake from the hearing church. I explained him about the Lord’super is an important for us to remember about what Jesus Christ had done for us often. It tends to be senstive the body of Christ becaue of caring and concern with the brethren or sisters in Christ. He agree with my saying but he doesn’t want to become the traidtional; therefore, it could become meaningless. In the addition, it encourages the believers to look forward the Lord’super two times. My arguement is how the believers have feeling senstive if they realize sin against to others; therefore, they can’t take the Lord’s super if the Lord’s super often as monthly. It shows respectable and reverance. The big problem is that two times in the year, it is so difficult for the believers to examine or feel the meaningless because they don’t understand what the Bible teaches about the Lord’s super. How sad!!!
In fact, I hurt from the pastor because his statement was to me that he graudtaed from Trinity seminary. I myself graduated from the Bible Institute so I felt low because of his bad attitude. It created me to leave the church because of oppression and control through the pastor. How sad! I miss people very much.
Kent,
(You are right on the Billy G. thing, sorry) So you would fight for the essentials of the Gospel the same way that you would over an amil/premil position? Would you be able to fellowship with someone who has a different eschatalogical system than you? How about share the pulpit?
That is the point of this article. There are some elements of Holy Scripture that we are all less sure about. The Gospel is the “power of God unto salvation” and it is what saves. We have to get that right because it affects every aspect of our lives. Do I think anything outside of the Gospel is worth fighting for? You bet I do! Would I bring out my boxing gloves to defend the infalliable inspiration of the Bible? Yup. How about when in the Tribulation (assuming a disp. understanding of Scripture) the “marriage supper of the lamb” takes place? Nope.
From what I see in fundamentalist circles, which are strong here in Michigan, is a wrangling over things that we honestly are unsure about. In my opinion that is what the movement here is characterized by. (Often wrongly I might add)
An example would be when it comes to MacArthur sharing the pulpit with a man like CJ Mahaney. CJ is an amazing preacher of the Word that I disagree strongly with on Charismatic gifts. His books on Humilty and Living the Cross Centerd Life are very valuable and his preaching is doctrinal and powerful. Many fundamentalists would not allow CJ to speak in their church on any doctrine because of hsi views on charismatic gifts. I would let him speak from our church’s pulpit anytime on anything other than the charismatic gifts. That is the divide that Phil is trying to highlight here.
Kent,
By the way, the verse you cited to Mike says “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” I do not think anyone on this board thinks that a command in Scripture is optional, but what about “finer points of doctrine”? (i.e. Limited atonement, the identification of the two witnesses in Revelation, etc.) That is what Phil is stating
This whole discussion hits close to home for me as well. I’m a younger guy, just graduated college, and am thinking about seminary. Largely as a fruit of MacArthur’s ministry I’ve grown quite a bit over the last year and a half, specifically in respect to my value for the Word. And that’s made me dig in.
Kent, I understand the idea that no doctrines are less essential. It was even a question of mine at the Shepherds’ Conference Q&A this past year. It didn’t get picked to be answered, but somebody somewhere along the line pointed me in the direction Mohler’s Theological Triage. I appreciated the sentiment, but honestly didn’t feel like it resolved much.
My thoughts have been along the lines of, “If we believe Scripture to be inerrant, inspired, infallible, as well as CLEAR, why should we content ourselves to be ‘hazy’ on certain doctrinal points.” For example, with Hayden’s example about the wedding supper of the Lamb. I think it’s our responsibility to contend for that point, unless we think Revelation is unclear. So to that side I’d ask, “Why are we less sure about Revelation than the Gospel of John?”
However, making the jump — and I’m not sure you’re doing this, so you’ll have to tell me — from that to “The correct view of baptism is necessary for salvation,” gives me a ton of pause. I guess I think about how people are saved without a thorough doctrinal statement ready to be published. Would you say that happens, or are people not saved until that point?
Now, again, I don’t think we have any right to say we’re unsure about the method of baptism, unless we’re blaming our own ignorance and laziness… not the perspicuity of Scripture. But it doesn’t gel with me (and maybe that’s not a good reason) that, for instance, either John MacArthur or John Piper are unsaved. You’ve got Mac’s futuristic premil, Israel separate from Church, cessationist, etc… where Piper’s historic premil, covenental, and continuationist. If I’m understanding you correctly, you’d have to commit to saying that one of these people aren’t saved, right?
Really trying to understand this.
MIKE
Mike,
You sound you like you want to be honest with Scripture and I commend that. I encourage you to go ahead and reread what you wrote and see how that when you stick with Scripture, you come to “everything God said is important,” and when you lean back against attempting humanly to explain the consistency of all the differing views, you take a position for practical purposes that relies on experience instead of the Bible.
I’m not Piper or MacArthur’s judge. Scripture is plain/clear (perspicuous). God wants us to believe and practice all of it. Besides Matthew 28:20, I could give you a few dozen passages that say the same thing. None say, “Don’t sweat the small stuff,” or something like that. With Nadab and Abihu, Uzzah, Ananias and Sapphira, etc., I get the opposite message. We are responsible to keep what God says and fellowship based on what He said. We don’t see in Scripture the idea of reducing the teachings to a common denominator that allows for unity.
As far as it being a salvation issue, some of it isn’t; however, unwillingness to obey is rebellion against sovereign lordship (despotes) characteristic of the lost. We know that God knows and will separate the sheep from the goats, Him not me. In this lifetime, I base my fellowship on what I know he teaches. I don’t commit to any of these being unsaved. Some with whom we don’t fellowship, we admonish as brothers (2 Thess. 3). We treat some AS heathen men and publicans (Mt. 18:17), but that doesn’t mean they ARE publicans and sinners.
Your question at Shepherd’s conference was vital. Was God unclear about how things would end? No. Do you think that God is OK with some not believing in imminence, for instance, a major motivation for holy living in the NT? When we call it a “non-essential” or “tertiary,” what does that do? Our chief concern should be whether we are getting along with God, not getting along with one another.
Haydn,
Respectfully, I don’t see any Scriptural argumentation in what you have written, except for one point, the understanding of “command” in Matthew 28:20. First, if you look at John 14:15-24, Jesus said if you love Him, you’ll keep His words, sayings, and commands. Often Scripture speaks of his commandments, statutes, and judgments, not differentiating between them in importance. In Matthew 4:4, Jesus said that we live by every word. Second, the Greek word entello there (see BDAG) means “to give or leave instructions.” It comes with the force of a command because of Christ’s authority (Matthew 28:17); however, it isn’t saying “observe only all of the teachings I give in the imperative mode.”
” I base my fellowship on what I know he teaches.”
Amen.
That’s an across the board statement for all that have commented here I’m sure.
Kent,
Thank you for the interaction. I fully agree with the point of what you said about imperatives.(I must not have been clear about what I was saying) Jesus, and any other Scripture writer, does not have to say something in the imperative for us to obey it. Is there a difference in Scripture between perscription and discription though? (That is the point I am trying to make) Are we equally outraged at the misunderstanding of the Gospel as we are the use of drums in church? Do we respond the same way?
BTW The point you make about imminence and holy living is a red herring in my mind. I have many brothers in the Lord who are covenental and believe much differently about the end times than I do, yet they manage to live holy lives. (BTW I am a very committed pre-mil dispentaionalist but benefit from others outside of “my camp”) Eschataological views differ not because God is not clear but because we are sinful and do not know our own hearts. (Jer. 17:9)
The point and scope of this article is not about being wishy-washy in the truth and I suspect you know that. (knowing what you do about Phil). It is about the spirit in which we contend for the truth. Are we pugalistic always? (Think 1 John 4:15-21; 1 Cor. 13:1-3)
Kent, I would agree with a lot of what you have to say on this topic and have benefitted from some of your previous writings, but think you and I will not agree on this topic due to our backgrounds. That is ok, I still consider you a brother and am unified with you around the truth of the Gospel.
Hayden,
Thanks. I get the jist of your first paragraph. Certain issues are non-Scriptural. Obviously Scriptural issues are more important than non-Scriptural ones. The use of drums is not non-Scriptural. The Bible prescribes the use of percussion instruments (Ps. 150). It isn’t that we use them, but how we use them. Every issue of obedience relates to the gospel. Are we saying the gospel is license to sin in some other area than not believing the gospel? Rom. 6:1. God forbid.
Scripture relates imminence to holy living (2 Pet. 3:10-12), whether you can find a holy living, non-imminence person or not? God’s authority stands. We should agree or disagree on this and all other issues based on what Scripture teaches regardless of our backgrounds.
Kent,
Do you fellowship with anyone who does not agree with you on every single interpretation of every passage of Scripture? Just curious…
NateW
Nate,
Thanks for asking, and very well worded question. If I say “yes,” then separation is about me, about agreeing with me. And since you use the word “interpretation,” it means that it is about interpretation, which usually has fairly wide latitude. That’s where this subject relates to the emerging movement. They say we can’t be sure about interpretation. Is that what you say NateW? I see the emerging movement just moving the line of Scriptural ambiguity further than where you would draw it. For instance, I don’t see you separating over infant sprinkling. They don’t separate over homosexuality. Why are they worse for not doing so? I would venture to say that the doctrine of infant sprinkling has resulted in more people going to hell than the practice of homosexuality.
I practice Scriptural separation over what the Bible teaches. I don’t separate over every “interpretation,” i.e. Jephthah’s daughter and the “sons of God” (angels or line of Cain) in Gen. 6. I don’t separate over every differing application either. To practice NT doctrine and practice, I separate over what the Bible teaches us to believe and do. I don’t cut people off. “Be patient with all men.” We can’t preserve the truth unless we will separate over it. Truth is antithetical. No one can believe two conflicting truths. Jesus came not to bring peace but a sword.
I can explain my position more Nate. I would want to. I haven’t yet heard a Biblical theology of this primary/secondary. It seems to be based on pragmatic reasoning, fitting a doctrine to a predisposed and comfortable practice. The arguments are solely rhetorical. Thanks again for asking.
Kent,
I wasn’t asking you to say whether or not Piper or MacArthur were saved. I was just using them as examples of men who have differing views on things.
The hypothetical is: Can a dispensational cessationist AND a historic premil, covenental continuationist both be saved?
I’m not trying to get you to commit to something and then trap you. I’m just trying to understand what you believe. To that effect, I would really appreciate a yes or no answer only. If you could do that, I’d be grateful. If not, I understand.
MIKE
Kent,
I believe the point of Phil’s article was to explain the need for men to understand which doctrines we should ultimately break fellowship over. I realize that you are saying that you do not believe Scripture makes any distinction between doctrines, but the reason I asked the above question is that I would venture to guess that your practice says something different. You continue to say that you seperate over what the Bible teaches. I don’t think anyone else who has commented on this site would say that they don’t try to uphold everything Scripture teaches. We can all try to uphold what Scripture teaches, disagree on what we believe it teaches on certain issues and still fellowship as believers.
The point is that in our practice there are some doctrines which people will break fellowship over and some they will not, even though they disagree. Do you fellowship with anyone who believes something different than you? Maybe its church polity, or end times, or music selection, or mode of baptism, or any number of other issues. Your circle of fellowship would be terribly small if you only fellowship with those who believe all the same things you do. Once you agree to fellowship with someone who believes something different than you, your practice betrays your belief that some doctrines are worth seperating over and some can be disagreed upon and fellowship still be enjoyed. I’m not trying to pick apart your personal views on seperation, I am just trying to clarify what I believe Phil was writing about and that somehow got lost in the shuffle.
Mike,
I didn’t understand that you were asking me that question, so if it seemed as though I was avoiding an answer, I wasn’t. I think if you read what I last wrote to NateW it would answer the question, however. I can’t judge whether someone is saved or not, but I can separate from him as a brother or separate from him AS a heathen man and publican. Either way, I’m separated from him because of belief and practice.
NateW,
Nothing got lost in the shuffle. I understand what Phil has written. I’ve read several articles and comments that he has scribed about this. Phil knows too that I understand what he has written. My point is that what I know he said is actually not Scriptural. I gave a few Biblical points and those have not been dealt with. I asked you questions and you didn’t answer them. That’s your prerogative; it’s a free country and this is your website.
I also understood your “gotcha” argument—if I am not consistent in my practice it somehow might prove that what I am espousing isn’t true. Respectfully, it is a weak (or no) argument even if I was inconsistent. I also believe that the burden of proof for this new doctrine of tertiary/primary (even according to Phil not found in historic material) rests upon you. I’ve shown Scripturally it is wrong. Regarding my practice, I believe I am consistent, and where it is pointed out that I am inconsistent, I will change. What the Bible teaches and what I believe results in true unity in churches and between churches. Our church has many churches with whom we fellowship and we are all independents tied together by nothing but the truth. Even so, what is this concern for a circle of fellowship being small—what is this disposition with numbers? Jesus never said we would be large. Concern with numbers is weak faith. Leave the numbers to God. Let Him do the counting. When David numbered the people what occurred? What I want is Scriptural fellowship, Scriptural unity, not some faux-fellowship based on reducing doctrines to a manageable number. That is nowhere in Scripture.
John MacArthur may write a book to “help the body,” that is, work at getting Charismatics to see the light, but separation is what God ordered us. Separation is God’s way. You could add a disclaimer when you preach certain doctrines—this is not a doctrine important enough to separate over, it’s just in God’s Word.
It’s good to wear a label which speaks of heritage. However, when we become more devoted to the name than anything else, cult-like philosophies begin to form. I believe that’s what is behind hyper-Calvinism, hyper-dispensationalism, and hyper-fundamentalism, for example. The point is, be something. But be something out of conviction, and always have the right priority:
http://www.contendfortruth.com/writings/essays/data/ic_essays/5/
I do understand what some people are saying about the Reformed Baptist Church.Well i can tell you that the Reformed Baptist Church with its true Doctrine of Grace faith is the Church of the 21st Century into todays Reformed Faith.And i am prod to be a Reformed Baptist.
Yours in his true Grace of our Lord.
From William P Wilson Training for the Ministry of the Reformed Baptist Church. So i would like to hear from anyone esle on this Subjected.
Since false teachers will undergo greater condemnation, I have great reason post this blog with fear and trembling if what I write is a distortion of the truth. Please compare what you are about to read with Scripture. Don’t just simply accept my (or anyone else’s) words alone on a subject as important as this. Let the Holy Word of God speak for itself.
“What must I do to be saved?” – The most important question that has faced mankind since the Fall. All Christians realize that Jesus is the only door that we can enter Heaven through, but then the debate arises as to how exactly we obtain forgiveness through Him and what conditions must be met in order for Him to bestow it. How can it be that entire denominations have formed and split over the very foundational tenet of the Christian faith?
I was raised in a fundamentalist church that taught salvation is “by grace though faith alone”. While it is true that we cannot in any way earn salvation, it seems that we must examine what Biblical faith is. I think it can be best summarized by the old hymn titled “Trust and Obey”. While the belief part is the one we seem to emphasize, and we certainly should, the other side of the same coin so to speak, is obedience, and that is the part that we seem to minimize lest we hear words such as “legalism” and “works” thrown about. However, consider such passages as James 2:14-26 and 2 Thes. 1:8 which says “He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus”. [italics mine] Of course, there are many scriptures that teach we must believe (trust) in Christ. But it is clear that salvation also requires obedience, but what specifically?
Obedience to the gospel includes a lifestyle of continued repentance from sin. Luke 13:3, Acts 3:19
Obedience to the gospel includes baptism (immersion). Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Gal. 3:27
Obedience to the gospel includes evangelism. Mark 16:15 Mat. 10:32-33 Mat. 28:18-20
1 John 2:3-6 puts it simply by stating, “We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.” [italics mine]
I have noticed that many places in the Bible that little word “if” has huge significance. I know this issue may be a sticking point for many and they will defend their way of thinking to the end, but the only one that matters is the Lord’s. Please don’t misunderstand, I am not trying to be harsh, divisive, or judgmental, and I am by no means perfect nor do I feel that I am qualified to be a Biblical scholar. However, we should all be concerned with pursuing absolute truth instead of reciting denominational dogma. I am deeply concerned and sorrowful for many who seem to preach and/or believe a “watered down” gospel with the evidence showing itself through the spiritual apathy and moral decline that seems to be accelerating in this country with a majority population that claims to be “Christian”.
James 4:4 equates friendship with the world with hatred toward God. How many of us who call ourselves followers of Jesus express hatred toward the One whom we say we love by the things we desire, entertainment we consume (see http://www.hollywoodandGod.com ), events we attend, and relationships we cultivate. I am not advocating separatism where we hide out in communes and do not interact with anyone who we deem “unholy”. We need to be salt and light among the nations in order to point the way to Christ to a people who desperately need Him. The trick is to be in the world without becoming part of it.
I have been looked down upon by some of the brethren from my past for now attending a Restoration Movement New Testament church that teaches “something in addition to faith only as a requirement for salvation” as if I had joined some kind of heretical sect, and this has been quite troubling to me because that “something” is nothing more than obedience to the very commands of Jesus. How little we Christians know of the love of Christ! May God forgive us for failing to mourn over the scores of people who are daily being swept into eternal torment while we arrogantly spar in the prideful contest of denominational superiority. Unfortunately it seems that perhaps there needs to be a clarification, if not purification among those who claim to be saved. Consider 1 Peter 4:17,18 “For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And, “If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?” Once again we see that not only is the Gospel something that must be believed, it is also something that must be obeyed.
We will never achieve perfection this side of eternity. Spiritual growth is a lifelong process that requires discipline, perseverance, and a whole lot of grace. But does the fact that we are under grace mean we do not have to obey God? Sure we have to believe, but that’s only the beginning. Keep in mind what Jesus told the father of lies in Mat. 4:4, “But he answered and said, it is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”
We have to live by every word, not just the scriptures that we feel apply to us!
I am afraid that there are those who make Biblical conversion too easy. Not only is the gate to eternal life small, but the road leading to that gate is narrow and not well traveled. The fact that there will be more people in Hell than in Heaven has caused me to literally weep, and how I wish with everything in me that was not true! And perhaps most tragically, many professing Christians will end up condemned to everlasting fire because they were deceived. However, Jesus himself warned of that reality in Mat. 7, and I have no choice but to accept His words. That is why it is so important that we heed the stern warning in Gal. 1:7 not to pervert the Gospel of Christ no matter how “noble” our intentions.
I know this is a long post, but thank you for reading and I would welcome any feedback.