Recently we’ve been discussing whether doctrines can be secondary, or if they should all be essential. In my post “Minimizing the Gospel through Excessive Separation“, I argue that only fundamental doctrines are essential, and when we separate over secondary doctrines, we are belittling the Gospel.
John MacArthur agrees with me it seems. On Pulpit Live there is a 3-part series entitled “What Doctrines are Essential?” [click to read part 1, part 2, and part 3]. He helps me make my case. Stronger words and harsher warnings surround denial of cardinal doctrines. Doctrines expressly stated to be essential to one’s salvation, are thus expressly identified as fundamental.
Check out MacArthur’s posts, and then scan through the debate on my blog. Let me know if you think I’m wrong about this, or if you have further Scriptural arguments for the ranking of doctrines.
For starters, I believe that MacArthur is a great example of a pastor who is an example of one who adheres to historic classical fundamentalism. Granted there are several ‘degrees’ of fundamentalists out there (see Joel Tetreau’s A-B-C paradigm), I believe that MacArthur has taken the mantle of historic classic fundamentalism from those who were fundamentalists in the past 100 years. Other fundamentalists who are good examples of classic fundamentalism, particularly from the fundamentalism that I brought myself under, is of the Central Baptist (Minneapolis)/Detroit Baptist/Calvary Baptist (Lansdale) pedigree. I think that the kind of fundamentalism that we (that is, I or Bob) would eschew is the kind that stresses separation over non-essentials. I believe that the essentials are the fundamentals (Inspiration, Inerrancy, and Infallibility of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, The Virgin Birth of Christ, the full and complete humanity and divinity of Christ, the supernatural miracles of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ) and the Gospel (salvation by grace through faith alone in Christ). Although the eschatological differences with many fundamentalists were (and still are) a contentious issue, it is not essential to the above doctrines; one can be a dispensationalist or a covenantalist and yet claim to be a fundamentalist. Other doctrines are non-essential, but are still important (Baptist distinctives, Calvinism, and cessationism/continuationism are examples).
I have to read in depth the comments made on the other thread regarding this as I haven’t been reading the posts there. But, what I stated above would be my own two cents.
Bob,
Thanks for trying to visit my new site.
They were having some problems with the server but I think it is fixed now.
https://baptistbrethren.com/
Lord Bless…
I’ve made my case thoroughly here in these articles.
You’ll see them in reverse order, so scroll down to number one and read to number five.
https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/search?q=Secondary+Tertiary+Essential
Then read what Spurgeon said.
https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/search?q=Spurgeon+Tertiary+Essential
I’m also writing something that pertains right now at my blog.
https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2008/02/devil-in-details-matthew-518-19-and.html
Thanks Larry for sharing. I agree.
And Chris, good to see the new site.
Blessings both of you.
Bob
[…] 12, 2008 by fundyreformed Recently we’ve been debating the idea of whether certain doctrines should be considered fundamental or essential, and others merely secondary. Most Christians and even fundamentalists do admit that there are […]
Hi Bob,
I’ve been posting over at sfpulpit.com on Dr. Mac’s 3-part series on “essential” doctrine. I’ve been wrestling with this for awhile.
I popped over to Kent Brandenburg’s blog and read his 5-part series. I really like Kent’s argument, his reasoning, his biblical evidence, and his conclusions. I also like his terminology. Reductionism to “left-wing” legalism.
P.S. Looking over at your sidebar, I just want to let you know that I’m also a Huckabee supporter. I wish pundits would realize that Huck supporters want Huck to win the Presidency, and not to be VP. And that preventing McCain from getting 1191 is the goal so as to get to a brokered convention where anything can happen.
Pax.
I just went over to the “Minimizing the Gospel through excessive separation” blog post.
I see that this is an on-going discussion. Between Kent and Phil Johnson and Bob H. And that Bob H. is calling upon John MacArthur as a respected authority figure in the debate.
This is very challenging to discern. Because I could transpose the title above to:
“Minimizing the Gospel through excessive compromise.” Or
“Minimizing the Gospel through excessive dilution” Or
“Minimizing the Gospel through false unity”.
In essence, there are MANY ways that we can minimize the Gospel, yes?
Look at this excerpt by Dr. Albert Mohler:
In a brief historical analysis, Grudem demonstrates that denominations move through “a predictable sequence” of theological liberalism. First, biblical inerrancy is abandoned. Then, in turn, the denomination endorses the ordination of women, rejects biblical teaching on male leadership in marriage, sidelines pastors who are opposed to the ordination of women, approves homosexual conduct as morally valid in at least some cases, ordains homosexuals, and elects homosexuals to “high leadership positions in the denomination.”
If you look at the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, it is explicitly written that belief in inerrancy is non-salvific. That although it is a “secondary, non-salvific” doctrine, not subscribing to inerrancy would cause serious harm and damage to the Body of Christ.
Now Bob, based on your concern about “excessive separation minimizing the Gospel” would you suppress polemic argument (and if polemic argument doesn’t succeed, then separation) and separation over non-salvific, non-essential doctrines such as errant bible, abortion, gay marriage, gay ordination, egalitarianism?
After all, your argument is that excessive separation is hurting the Gospel Witness of the Church.
[…] When the Church Loses Its Will to Discern (Wheaton: Crossway, 1994; see pg. 108-117). I recently linked to a 3-part blog series by MacArthur on how to determine if a doctrine is essential, which is a […]
https://TinyUrl.com/LetHimBeDamned
It is time to wake up and consider how a half truth gospel is subtly (yet very effectively) corrupting the church. John Piper is concerned about it. And he has spoken prophetically here in that even he doesn’t know how much what he is teaching is leading those with spiritual ears to hear!
This discernment oriented video will cut through the sentimentality and stare truth right in the face and cause those who love the truth (i.e. Jesus) to accept it for what it is. What is truth? Is not just a question that Pontius Pilate had to ask but what all people (especially those who claim to follow Jesus) must ask!.
[…] we’ve been debating the idea of whether certain doctrines should be considered fundamental or essential, and others merely secondary. Most Christians and even fundamentalists do admit that there are […]
[…] truths are far more important than peripheral matters. And I could also point you to Al Mohler or John MacArthur for excellent defenses of my position on this point. I can add Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, John Calvin […]