What Doctrines Are Essential? (Part 2)
February 7th, 2008
(By John MacArthur)
III. Everything Essential to Saving Faith Is Essential
Third, a doctrine must be regarded as fundamental if eternal life depends on it. Scripture is full of statements that identify the terms of salvation and the marks of genuine faith.
“Without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6). That verse makes faith itself essential to a right relationship with God. It also expressly identifies both the existence and the veracity of God as fundamental articles of the Christian faith.
Elsewhere we are told that eternal life is obtained through the knowledge of the true God and Jesus Christ (John 17:3; 14:6; Acts 4:12). Since Jesus Himself is the true God incarnate (1 John 5:20; John 8:58; 10:30), the fact of His deity (and by implication the whole doctrine of the Trinity) is a fundamental article of faith (see 1 John 2:23). Our Lord Himself confirmed this when He said all must honor Him as they honor the Father (John 5:23).
The truths of Jesus’ divine Sonship and Messiahship are also fundamental articles of faith (John 20:31).
Of course, the bodily resurrection of Christ is a fundamental doctrine, because 1 Corinthians 15:14 tells us, “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.”
Romans 10:9 confirms that the resurrection is a fundamental doctrine, and adds another: the lordship of Christ. “If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.”
And according to Romans 4:4-5, justification by faith is a fundamental doctrine as well: “Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.” In other words, those who seek acceptance before God on the ground of their own righteousness will find they fall short (Romans 3:27-28; Galatians 2:16-3:29). Only those who trust God to impute Christ’s perfect righteousness to them are accounted truly righteous. This is precisely the difference between Roman Catholic doctrine and the Gospel set forth in Scripture. It is at the heart of all doctrine that is truly fundamental.
In fact, an error in understanding justification is the very thing that was responsible for the apostasy of the Jewish nation: “For not knowing about God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God” (Romans 10:3). Is that not the precise failure of Roman Catholicism? But “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (v. 4).
IV. Every Doctrine We Are Forbidden to Deny Is Fundamental
Certain teachings of Scripture carry threats of damnation to those who deny them. Other ideas are expressly stated to be affirmed only by unbelievers. Such doctrines, obviously, involve fundamental articles of genuine Christianity.
The apostle John began his first epistle with a series of statements that establish key points of the doctrine of sin (hamartiology) as fundamental articles of faith. “If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth” (1:6). That condemns wanton antinomianism (the idea that Christians are under no law whatsoever) and makes some degree of doctrinal and moral enlightenment essential to true Christianity. A second statement rules out the humanistic notion that people are basically good: “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (v. 8 ). And a third suggests that no true Christian would deny his or her own sinfulness: “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us” (v. 10).
First Corinthians 16:22 makes love for Christ a fundamental issue: “If anyone does not love the Lord, let him be accursed.” And a similar verse, 1 Corinthians 12:3, says that no one speaking by the Spirit of God can call Jesus accursed.
The truth of Jesus’ incarnation is also clearly designated a fundamental doctrine: “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist” (1 John 4:2-3). “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist” (2 John 7). Those verses by implication also condemn those who deny the Virgin Birth of our Lord, for if He was not virgin-born, He would be merely human, not eternal God come in the flesh.
And since those who twist and distort the Word of God are threatened with destruction (2 Peter 3:16), it is evident that both a lofty view of Scripture and a sound method of Bible interpretation (hermeneutics) are fundamental tenets of true Christianity.
(Final Part Tomorrow)
IV. Every Doctrine We Are Forbidden to Deny Is Fundamental
And since those who twist and distort the Word of God are threatened with destruction (2 Peter 3:16), it is evident that both a lofty view of Scripture and a sound method of Bible interpretation (hermeneutics) are fundamental tenets of true Christianity.
I’m very glad that Dr. MacArthur is tackling this series at this time. I’ve been thinking about this topic on a random semi-periodic basis over the last 1-2 years. Although I despise conflict-avoidance as a false unity veneer that simply postpones the inevitable, and is actually unhealthy for people, I don’t want or seek conflict either since that too is very spiritually unhealthy as well.
So with my caveat above serving as my motivating rationale for discerning what is “essential” doctrine, I have labored long and hard to determine whether the following two doctrines should be considered “essential”, and if they are, then I believe I am spiritually obligated and morally commanded by my Master Jesus Christ to contend for these “essential” doctrines as part of making disciples within the Great Commission.
(1) Complementarian doctrine of men and women and their roles in the home and in the Church as expressed and declared in Scripture.
(2) Same-Sex behavior is a sin.
I think that both of those two doctrines fall within Dr. Mac’s “Every Doctrine We Are Forbidden to Deny Is Fundamental.”
But it’s problematic or difficult to make the case that they are “Essential to Saving Faith.” What I’m stating is that when I’m contending with those brothers and sisters who are egalitarians or who believe that same-sex behavior is not a sin, I found it hard to counter their objection that such issues are not salvific, and since it’s not salvific in essence, then it’s not an “essential” doctrine, and therefore, I was being too legalistic, divisive, and harsh in the content and substance of what Scripture is saying since “equal-rights” egalitarianism and same-sex behavior are not “essential to salvation” doctrines.
Real-life example for you all. You meet or have an egalitarian Christian friend who’s married. He/she believes women should be or could be ordained to be senior pastors. He/she also believes that same-sex behavior is not a sin because they believe that such behavior is genetic in predisposition or that Scripture did not know of “monogamous” same-sex loving relationships. (please don’t detour the thread with any of Gagnon’s stuff about this. I know this material well.)
Are you going to inform your egalitarian Christian friend that they may not be spending eternity with God because they are doctrinally aberrant??? I don’t think many of you will. What you will probably do is what I have done. Albeit done tentatively and humbly and still seeking a better understanding so as to love others better. So far, I think there will be doctrinally aberrant believers who will be with us in heaven by the grace of God!!! That may very well describe me! Or describe Dr. Mac! Mind you, I don’t want to be doctrinally aberrant, but I humbly allow for the possibility/probability that I am!
Tentative Conclusion: Doctrinal correctness in some of the particulars doesn’t save!
Let me continue describing the journey of my exploration. Given that while I hold to complementarianism and that SS behavior is a sin, but factoring in that I have absolutely no desire to be a conflict-seeking person who’s willing to divide over “2nd-order” doctrines, I have to discern what the “essential” doctrines are.
Next, in defending complementarianism and biblical sexuality, I had to contend for the inerrancy, Authority, perspicuity, sufficiency, and preservation of Scripture. Now as someone who’s read and re-read and also subscribes to the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, I know that the CSBI statement flatly declares that belief in inerrancy does not save anyone. So inerrancy is not a salvific doctrine either!
And there are a good number of Christians who don’t believe that the Bible is inerrant. Can you tell those Christians that they are denying a fundamental doctrine that they are forbidden to deny?
That’s a hard question, is it not?
So, in my journey I have found that the doctrines of inerrancy, complementarianism, biblical sexuality are non-salvific, and because of that, they get shunted to “2nd-order” doctrinal status. And anything that gets shunted to 2nd-order doctrinal status is treated as adiaphora or treated with spiritual indifference.
I agree with CSBI’s statement. Denying these “2nd-order non-salvific” doctrines causes great and severe harm to the Body of Christ.
What irks and annoys me tremendously is that in affirming these 2nd-order non-salvific doctrines I (and others) get slammed and labeled with being judgmental, divisive, legalistic, Pharasaic, intolerant, unloving, un-Christlike, without grace, exclusive, etc….
Why does speaking the truth-in-love have to be so difficult? Who wants to be a headless John the Baptist? Or to be crucified like Jesus by your “fellow” Christians for standing upon God’s Word?
Truth,
I believe the Bible does present the same sex issue as an issue of salvation. I Corinthians 6:9-11 “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, not idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor durnkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” II Corinthians 5:17 “therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.” Colossians 3:5-7 “Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to imorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will
come upon the sons of disobedience, and in them you also once walked, when you were living them.”
It is pretty clear, actually crystal clear, from these Scriptures that the same sex issue is one that directly relates to salvation…whether one is actually saved or not. If you are saved you are a new person, the old person is dead, and according to chapter six of Romans, sin is no longer master over you as you are freed from its dominion because you are in Christ. Sin, hamartiology, is an essential doctrine, and, I think, the doctrine that gets the least amount of attention in the church today. We see the issue of sin and salvation in Isaiah 59:1-2 where the Lord tells Israel that their unrepentant sinfulness was what was separting them from Him and His salvation.
In Matthew 4:17, when Jesus began His public ministry, His first sermon was “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” This is exactly what John the Baptist had been preaching.
The essence of the same sex issue is unrepentant sexual immorality; and, before people thing we are picking on the those with the same sex issue, unrepentant sexual immorality also applies the heterosexuals in the church as well. Repeated unrepentant sin is also presented in I John as evidence of someone’s lack of salvation. So this doctrine is throughout the Bible, and is essential for our proper understanding of the true nature of salvation.
Morris Brooks
It seems like affirming the Scripture will always lead you into conflict with someone. The Doctrine of Salvation with an unbeliever, the doctrine of saving faith with a catholic and so on down the list until baptism and eschatology are all covered.
In my opinion, if anyone knows the truth of Scripture ie same sex relationships, and denies the scripture, it would have a grave impact on their salvation status. As the Lord said, “If you love Me you will obey my commandments”.
However, there is room in Salvation’s doorway for missunderstanding and partial knowledge of many issues not in the gospel of grace itself, as witnessed by the theif on the cross, who had no time to cleanse his abhorant doctrines (assuming he had some).
Nevertheless, we who are ministers are required to teach the full council of God, whether or not it causes conflict. If I am convinced that the Bible teaches adult baptist, I will teach it, and administratively divide over it, while still recognizing that many paedobaptists are faithful Christians readsoning from another Biblical position. R.C. Sproul for example has a defensible biblical rational for infant baptist, and a correct understanding of salvation proper. I couldn’t serve on the staff of his church, because of the dictates of conscience, but I would evangelize with him.
I very much sympathise with your position, as my denomination has variant positions on some of these secondary issues. I personally draw the line at teaching what I think the bible says and treating those who differ from me with the most respect I can one on one.
The religious leaders who had substituted the true word of God for their own religious/intellectual ideas accused Jesus of being a demon and casting out demons by the power of Satan. Today, that would translates to the slamming and labeling you described above. None of the accusations were true of Jesus, of course, and so many believed Christ, became His followers, and died for Him. People around the world are doing that very thing each day. All believers are called to do the same. For me, standing firm with the word of God as the only truth is the hardest work I do. Daily. Encouragement to speak the truth in love, and warnings if we don’t, abound throughout the New Testament. Keep reading the word. Daily. Walk in God’s strength. Daily. When you can find another follower to walk the lighted path with you, you have been greatly blessed! Just keep inviting others to stop stumbling around in the dark to join you. Trust God for the outcomes. Let us not grow weary in doing good. It truly is an abundant life! Count it all joy to be considered worthy of the suffering, Brother!
I agree with most all you have stated as being fundamental beliefs of the Christian faith. I do have several comments regarding several statements you make. You said ” Of course the bodily resurrection of Christ is a fundamental doctrine, because 1 Corinthians 15:14 tells us”If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, your faith also in vain”. By whose authority do you limit the resurrection to that of “bodily”? Jesus died. This means that the Son of God was dead. Not just His body, but He Himself was dead. God raised Jesus to life. Not only His body, but Jesus Himself was raised from the dead. Paul never teaches that the resurrection of Christ was limited to just the body. To believe otherwise limits the sacrifice of the Son of God to simply a sacrifice of a sinless human body, much more than that was offered to take away the sin of the world. You also suggest that the only way to believe in the virgin birth is to believe that the eternal God came in flesh. This in my opinion is misleading. Jesus, the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation was indeed born of a virgin. The Son of God came in human form, not God the Father.
I used to give out a lot of different christian books and teaching tapes\cds . I now only give out Dr. MacArthur’s lessons and book on the “Be-Attitudes, The Only Way to Happiness” and the study Bible. The teachings that our Lord and Savior gave in Matt. 5:3-12 are foundational to our relationship with God and can not be ignored. If God draws me to Himself, He will also equip me with faith to believe in the Holy Scriptures. I know I am a sinner saved by His grace and I will always be in the battle to overcome this sinful nature.
Where there is clear evidence of a behaviour being against God’s Holy Word, then to me that behaviour is rebellion againt God. For those who do not acknowledge such a behaviour as sin, all I can do is lovingly disagree with them and to go to God in prayer. I cannot say that they are comdemned to hell because I do not know whom God has chosen to save, maybe someday God will open thier eyes and they will clearly see and comprehend the truth.I do know this that until a person, by God’s grace, humbles himself\herself before God , confessing and repenting of thier rebellion against God and thier complete helplessness to save themselves ( be-attitudes 1,2,&3), this person is still “god” of their own life and are lost in self-rightousness.
As far as why speaking the truth in love is so difficult is because the truth is offensive to those who love their sin and are still the “god” of their own lives and they will hate the one who tells them the truth.
Seeker,
God made man in three parts: body, soul and spirit. When Adam sinned, he died spiritually and passed that nature on to future generations. When we are born again, the Holy Spirit comes to dwell in us, giving us spiritual life, again. When we die, our body dies, not our soul. We are the soul that lives in the body. It is the soul that lives forever, whether in heaven or hell. When our body dies, our soul departs the body and the body decays back to dust. So, when Jesus died on the cross, it was just his body that died. He told the thief on the cross that “today, you will be with me in paradise”. Their souls went to paradise.
Morris Brooks writes: Truth,
I believe the Bible does present the same sex issue as an issue of salvation. I Corinthians 6:9-11 “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, not idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor durnkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” … It is pretty clear, actually crystal clear, from these Scriptures that the same sex issue is one that directly relates to salvation…whether one is actually saved or not.
Thanks for the response Morris. I’d like to extend both your comment and my original lengthy comment to a very important observation. There are two categories of folks that we are contending for and contending with. One category are the unrepentant homosexual “Christians”, egalitarian Christians, and Christians who hold that the Bible is errant. For discussion sake, let’s just focus on homosexual Christians who believe that same-sex behavior is NOT a sin. That’s the first category.
The second category are those Christians who are not homosexuals and who believe that same-sex behavior is not a sin, or if they think it’s a sin, they get upset with those Christians who say that it’s a sin. This second category of Christians are what I call “ENABLERS”. Because they enable same-sex sin by providing an environment for it to flourish and thrive.
For example, there are liberal mainline Protestant churches and leaders, and there are Emergent churches and their leaders, who are Christians and who enable same-sex behavior within their churches, and even ordaining unrepentant gays and lesbians to ministry positions such as a pastor or reverend or minister. And in the case of The Episcopalian Church, to the office of Bishop.
So Morris, I understand your biblical argument towards same-sex “Christians” not inheriting the Kingdom of God. But would you also extend your biblical argument towards the theologically liberal enablers of same-sex behavior? What would your analysis say about a Christian leader or pewsitter who doesn’t engage in same-sex behavior but who says that it’s okay for GLBT Christians to do that contra Scripture’s clear prohibitions, and even ordaining them to ministry positions?
Are the enablers at risk of not spending eternity with God too? Or can false teachers still spend eternity with God? After all, there are many who would argue that the doctrine of no-same-sex behavior is a non-salvific doctrine. And as such, there is room for a “charitable” diversity of theological positions on the subject.
What say thee to the enablers? Of whom there are many. And when you engage them in polemic discussion, they will call you argumentative, a quarreler, a legalist, a harsh judgmental Pharisee, etc….
Non-Christians, not knowing any better, will simply see Christians arguing amongst each other about theological matters, and they will think that all Christians do is fight with each other, and they don’t love each other as Jesus said we should, and they will think that Christians are hypocrites, and in the end, damage is done to the Gospel witness and to the Body of Christ.
You tell me how a faithful follower of Christ like John MacArthur can contend against Christian enablers of sin without being misrepresented and distorted and slandered. And the corollary: Is it worth it to be misrepresented and distorted and slandered and for the gospel witness to suffer and the Body of Christ to suffer in some way when a loyal servant of Christ stands on God’s Word and clearly, yet lovingly, denounces unholy sin?
Truth,
Yes, to be a loyal servant of Christ and to stand on God’s Word and clearly, yet lovingly, denounce unholy sin is worth the price of rejection, slander , distortion etc. We were warned by our Lord and Saviour to expect this.
We were also warned in the parable of the sower that 2 out of 3 who hear the gospel and intially responds will not endure. Also there will be tares sown amoung the wheat but we are not to be overly concerned about that either ( in my opinion much strife within the visible church comes from this). We are commanded to love the brethen. If we have reservations about a person’s profession of faith we are to be respectful in our response to them and to pray for not only the brethren but for those whom we have reservations about.
Truth,
To answer your question, yes, I would extend my answer to those whom you have labeled theologically liberal enablers of the same sex behavior. Just because you call yourself a Christian and go to, or belong to, a church does not make you a Christian no more than you or I putting on a football uniform and sitting on the Dallas Cowboys’ bench makes us a football player.
In essence you are what you believe, and to believe something that is the exact opposite of Scripture, to deny what the Scripture says about a form of sin, is to deny God Himself and to call Him a liar. And let’s be clear, the Scripture is clear about the same sex issue, it is clear about sexual immorality, and it is just as clear about liars not entering the kingdom of God. In Mark 1:15, at the start of His public ministry Christ declared, “Repent, and believe the gospel.” The Scripture is the gospel from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.
Jude calls us to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. He was writing to refute those within the church, not outside the church, who were spreading false doctrine. The enablers you described are guilty of spreading false doctrine in the church, even if they are not in a teaching or preaching role.
Additionally, in Matthew 13, Jesus gives us the parable of the wheat and the tares, and from this parable we see that there will be counterfeit Christians planted in the church by the evil one. In II Corinthians 11:15 we see that the servants of the Devil disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. As Jesus said, “You will know them by their fruit.” Part of that fruit will be the doctrine they hold to and espouse.
When we are contending for the faith we should expect to be attacked by those within the church who are the tares and the servants of unrighteousness. They will call us harsh, judgmental, unloving, critical, divisive, mean-spirited, Pharisees, polemic, to name a few. And to answer your final question, yes, it is worth it, for there is really only One to please. I’ll close with Galatians 1:10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a slave of Christ.
Morris
Dear Faye and Morris,
Thank you for your gracious responses. Morris, thank you in particular for responding about what we should do with the Christian enablers and the condoners of sin.
For whatever reason, it doesn’t bother me as much when the World or the Culture declares that same-sex behavior isn’t a sin. I guess it’s because I automatically expect the World to be in direct opposition to God and His Word. But when “Christian” pastors, theologians, authors, and lay people declare that same-sex behavior isn’t a sin, and that there should be GLBT marriage, then I get very concerned and troubled.
Here are some doctrines that others argue are not essential to salvation: Inerrancy (and Authority) of Scripture, Egalitarianism, Same-Sex behavioral permissiveness, Neo-Darwinian Macro-Evolution.
Let’s just focus on same-sex sin within liberal mainline churches, within some/many Emergent churches, and within perhaps some conservative evangelical churches. Because this same-sex issue seems to be related in some fashion to Inerrancy and Authority of Scripture, “Equal Rights” egalitarianism, and Macro-Evolution.
I know folks who staunchly assert that there will be actively gay Christians in heaven. Both gay Christians themselves and heterosexual mainline ministry leaders assert this. “Essential” doctrine?
I think so. I’m just unsure about what to do with the enablers and teachers of heresy and apostasy. These people just seem to shriek even louder when you assert that their doctrine is not biblical.
With regards to my “Is it worth it?” question, I should have nuanced it more clearly. There is a personal cost to pay, which is our cross to bear. I believe it’s worth it although we oftentimes need to pray for more courage. But what I’m really driving at in my question is whether it’s worth it to the potential or actual damage it does to the body of Christ and to our Gospel Witness when we contend so diligently against false teachers and enablers of sin?
Many people claim that the drive for purity and holiness within the Church is, ironically, impure and unholy! I think this is a specious claim, but I have to recognize that it is used, and that it is often used to great effect in stifling and suppressing the transforming power that comes from obeying God’s Word.
I’ll stop now. I might be rambling too much.
Pax.
Truth,
I believe the issue is not whether it will damage or how much it will damage the body of Christ or our witness if we contend for the faith, but will we be obedient to contend for the faith. God superintends our obedience to achieve His desired results.
First, in Leviticus we have instructions on how to deal with sin in the camp with the upshot being that since they were a people set apart by God, they were to be a people set apart unto God, and, as such, were to be holy unto the Lord. So sin was dealt with specifically and directly so that it would not spread and infect the whole camp. They were to deal quickly and decisively with it to keep it from spreading. Paul espoused this principle to the Corinthians in I Corinthians 5:6 when he said, “A little leaven leavens the entire lump.” And he repeated this to the Galatians also. Unopposed, unconfronted, and therefore unchecked sin will run rampant in the body; and sin weakens and destroys our witness as it removes our distinctiveness from the world around us.
Secondly, God has called us to be distinctively different from the world around us. The world tolerates, promotes, sanctions, and advertises its sin, even to the point of flaunting its sin. We are told in II Corinthians 5:17 to “Come out from their midst and be separate.” In I Peter 1:16 we are told “You shall be holy for I am holy.” Peter goes on in 2:4-9 to describe us as a holy priesthood, a holy nation, and a people for God’s own possession so that we may proclaim His excellencies. As His people we can not proclaim His excellencies when we are allowing sin to go unchecked in the camp so that the camp looks and acts like the world. When that happens we have lost our saltiness and are good only for the dung heap.
So we should speak the truth and speak it in love, but not shrink back from declaring the truth. We really have no other option. God’s holiness should be important to us. It is important to Him as He requires us to treat Him as such. As we are the Lord’s body on earth, His visible manifestation of Himself to the world, then we should represent Him faithfully and accurately.
Morris
Truth,
You’ve been interacting with me over on my blog, and at my most recent post: The Concept of “Fundamental doctrines”: Modern Reductionism or Historic Protestant Doctrine? (which links back to this series). In skimming through your posts here, let me share a link which will help you and others reading this in thinking through how to approach new doctrinal issues which arise in our day.
Wayne Grudem wrote an excellent chapter for the book: Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity (ed. by John Piper, Justin Taylor, and Paul Helseth [Wheaton: Crossway, 2003]). The chapter is entitled: “Why, When, and For What, Should We Draw New Boundaries?” It is available in PDF and DOC formats. This chapter iw well worth your time, as he explains how to confront issues like egalitarianism, homosexuality, and the like. He discusses the importance and validity of boundaries and how with some organizations, boundaries are necessarily to be drawn tighter than just the level of fundamental or essential doctrine.Hope that helps.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob Hayton
oops! I didn’t close that last link appropriately. It should still work though.
I feel the need to correct a statement I made earlier in my previous post. God has brought to my attention a passage of scripture that I believe I have not had the full understanding of. God was in Christ , reconciling the world unto Himself.2Cor.5:19 Not reconciling the world to Himself in (by means of) Christ but IN CHRIST reconciling the world. In the Son of God we ought to see God Himself giving Himself, sacrificing Himself. In light of this passage Jesus was Eternal God come in flesh. I stand corrected and offer my apologies.