Distinguishing Mountains from Molehills

[Praxis+Theodicy]

This might be controversial, but I would draw a line between doctrines, not based on how important they are, but by how certain I think we can be of them from scripture. There are some things that seem very clear and straightforward, others seem to be open to some interpretation.

Zwingli's stance against the RC doctrine of Purgatory was simply that we shouldn't emphasize or define something the Bible is not verybclear about. He didn't deny the existence of purgatory outright, he just said the Bible is less than clear so we should be content to let it remain a mystery.

The Eastern Orthodox church is also very comfortable with some doctrines being undefined or left as mysteries. I think an examination of what they consider mysteries would be a good place to start on doctrines that I think are less needy of certainty or clarification.

And here's for the extra controversial take. I think anything apocalyptic written in scripture ought to be very openly and loosely interpreted, with room left for disagreements. Apocalyptic literature is an "unveiling". It's where we see something "behind the scenes" and usually it is written using strange images and metaphors to help us understand eternal things from a mortal POV. It occurs anytime we read of something happening outside of human history. The book of revelation, the intro to Job, and the creation account in Genesis are all examples.

[Sudsy]

This might be controversial, but I would draw a line between doctrines, not based on how important they are, but by how certain I think we can be of them from scripture. There are some things that seem very clear and straightforward, others seem to be open to some interpretation.

Zwingli's stance against the RC doctrine of Purgatory was simply that we shouldn't emphasize or define something the Bible is not verybclear about. He didn't deny the existence of purgatory outright, he just said the Bible is less than clear so we should be content to let it remain a mystery.

The Eastern Orthodox church is also very comfortable with some doctrines being undefined or left as mysteries. I think an examination of what they consider mysteries would be a good place to start on doctrines that I think are less needy of certainty or clarification.

And here's for the extra controversial take. I think anything apocalyptic written in scripture ought to be very openly and loosely interpreted, with room left for disagreements. Apocalyptic literature is an "unveiling". It's where we see something "behind the scenes" and usually it is written using strange images and metaphors to help us understand eternal things from a mortal POV. It occurs anytime we read of something happening outside of human history. The book of revelation, the intro to Job, and the creation account in Genesis are all examples.

Calvinists feel quite clear and certain of their TULIP beliefs. Armenians feel quite clear and certain that all or most all of this TULIP understanding of God and how He operates is false. Oneness Pentecostals believe they have scriptural support to reject the Trinity understanding of God. Baptists and Brethren believe their eternal security belief is scriptural and important to a believer not living in fear of their salvation. Some are very confident of pre-mill understandings of the future, others are not. And on and on it goes.

Just saying what some think is clear and not for debate, others believe differently or chose to leave this in the mystery category. So who has it all figured out correctly ? No one. We all see through a glass darkly and only know in part saith scripture.

I believe the 'mountain' belief for most is what is foundational to Christianity that Paul says is what is of first importance in believing the Gospel that saves us. 1 Cor 15:1-4. Most Christians embrace this as fundamental and don't debate this. However what it means to truly believe these truths and what affect this has on your life again becomes debatable.

Some are more certain than others that they are saved. Others live in fear and hope, in the sense of wishful thinking, that they will be saved but are not that certain. Scripture says on the one hand we can be sure we are saved, other scriptures seem to indicate that we must work out our salvation in fear and trembling. Which is it ? Is knowing now that you are saved, am being saved and will be saved a 'mountain' belief or a 'molehill' belief ? Do we have genuine assurance of my salvation or perhaps a false assurance ? Some things are only known between God and us in this 'mountain' matter. However, others may believe they can judge that because a scripture says by their fruits they will be known and their fruit inspection may lead them to believe we are not saved. Will we believe the inner witness of the Spirit over what another Christian thinks ?

Seems to me there is much varied 'cherry picking' on what is deemed to be straight forward and what is not so for me, it comes back to my personal relationship with God as that is who I will give an account some day. Did I listen for His guidance through the Spirit or did I hitch my wagon to a certain belief system of some Christian faith group ? My eternal existence depends on this. Quite a serious matter, imo.

[MattY]

Why not just start form the Nicene Creed?

I'd be fine with that personally, as it lines up with the previous orthodox teachings of the church (per the rule of faith, etc.) and the worst christological heresies of the time do not. But a couple reasons, 1, I've been studying the 2nd century church recently and had the rule of faith on my mind from reading that. And, 2, I wanted to go back to earlier sources - the earlier the better, plus I wanted to avoid any objection related to Constantine.

[barnhart]

If I wanted to get picky about the Nicean Creed, it de-emphasizes, to the point of erasure, any purpose of Jesus other than sacrificial death and resurrection. It jumps from birth straight to the cross. The life, example and teaching of Jesus are treated as irrelevant. That said, I appreciate the Creed for what it says, my critique is with glaring omissions.

[MattY]

The essentials in my view are the first and second greatest commandments. The rest is less weighty.

Absolutely. If I have all faith, so that I can move mountains, or all doctrinal truth, or an outwardly very righteous life, and have not love, it profits me nothing.

YouTube has a sermon by Rick Rhodes titled "Try the Spirits". Per 1 John 4, there are at least 3 tests to know whether a spirit is the Spirit of God.

1. His Spirit will lead to Jesus.
2. His Spirit will lead to love.
3. His Spirit will lead to truth.

You can have truth truth truth; but without love, the Spirit is not there; and vice versa. Someone who truly fulfills the love command has fulfilled the law; but from a practical standpoint, doctrinal truth still needs to be discussed and evaluated. Some people speak of a reduction of all doctrine and ethics to love; but that's not accurate, or else the vast majority of Scripture would be irrelevant. It's not a reduction, it's a goal or fulfillment.

[MattY]

This is an interesting list to start with as "essential", particularly since the word "Trinity" never appears in the Bible and the New Testament sure doesn't ever claim it to be foundational to the faith. But the NT does teach that following and obeying Jesus is.

Which leads me to ask why...

(2) important or urgent doctrines (believer's baptism, nonresistance

Shouldn't nonresistance be in list #1?

It's complex, not everything is going to fit neatly into these categories, and you can feel free to disagree of course. And I'd say it's maybe the most important in list #2.
But I'm going to try to answer your question. I put it there because almost no one acts like it's in the first list. We recognize many people as Christians who are not of Anabaptist thinking in this matter - we sing their songs, read their books, learn about and appreciate their life stories, etc. John Bunyan, John Newton, William Wilberforce, John & Charles Wesley, Fanny Crosby, Philip P. Bliss, Daniel Webster Whittle, A.W. Tozer, and so on. Nate Saint and Roger Youderian were in the military, and yet laid down their lives for Christ. In my observation and experience, we don't think, "Oh, they were just professing Christians" - we think of them as genuine believers. Despite our strong differences with them on important issues, they were trying to follow Christ. These important issues - nonresistance, infant baptism, Calvinism, etc. - are all on the second list. (We can see in history what happens to the church when it has made wrong choices on these issues!) On the other hand, Tolstoy was all about peace, love, and nonviolence; but we know that he was not truly a believer, for he said God never became incarnate by the virgin Mary, Jesus was only a man, did not do miracles, and did not rise from the dead. Any advocacy for love and nonviolence without specific Christian belief in redemption through the blood and resurrection of Christ has no real Christian content and is outside the Gospel, for any atheist, Buddhist, or other unbeliever can advocate the same.

I can agree that people may disagree with the particulars but I would disagree that some of these things are not "foundational". For example, the Bible is very clear about the requirements for a deacon, presbyter, or deacon; there can be no dispute that it is intended to be male, unless one is talking to someone who feels comfortable tossing out clear readings of the NT.

I agree, it's clear to me too. But that's not the criteria for placement in list #1. If you look at the items in the first list, they are all about who Jesus is and His work in salvation history - creation, redemption, glorification. I haven't seen how male ordination is essential to that - rather, it seems more like an important doctrine for the proper health and order of life in the church.

In my church circles, we would excommunicate or place under church discipline (including a leader) someone who embraces "false doctrine", but there is no distinction of "tiers" of "well, this false doctrine is OK, but this false doctrine is really bad so it's not OK". For example, teaching against the headcovering would be false doctrine. So would teaching against nonresistance. So would teaching against the Trinity.

I wasn't thinking of any specific examples of a member with disagreements on a serious issue; in my experience at church I don't know of a member disagreeing with anything other than something like eschatology or dress standards. I was just thinking hypothetically, and only of someone with privately held views. Certainly no one would be allowed to teach something we view as false doctrine in a class or from the pulpit.

[MattY]

I saw an interesting statement recently: There are issues on which it's better to be wrong than to be apathetic. (Although it's certainly best to be right though). That would apply to most of the things listed under 2 and 3 I would think.

[Josh]

But I'm going to try to answer your question. I put it there because almost no one acts like it's in the first list. We recognize many people as Christians who are not of Anabaptist thinking in this matter - we sing their songs, read their books, learn about and appreciate their life stories, etc. John Bunyan, John Newton, William Wilberforce, John & Charles Wesley, Fanny Crosby, Philip P. Bliss, Daniel Webster Whittle, A.W. Tozer, and so on. Nate Saint and Roger Youderian were in the military, and yet laid down their lives for Christ. In my observation and experience, we don't think, "Oh, they were just professing Christians" - we think of them as genuine believers. Despite our strong differences with them on important issues, they were trying to follow Christ. These important issues - nonresistance, infant baptism, Calvinism, etc. - are all on the second list.

I think your viewpoint is coloured by, in reality, being part of a Christian group that is simply evangelical-fundamentalist with plain clothes on, if you think the essentials are the things laid down by the people in the list above. This is an important distinction between OO groups, "true church" groups, and the more mainstream-on-the-road-to-become-not-conservative-anymore conservative Anabaptists.

To profess to follow Christ, one has to actually follow him, and nonresistance was the first thing he said in his very first sermon on the mount.

I can agree that people may disagree with the particulars but I would disagree that some of these things are not "foundational". For example, the Bible is very clear about the requirements for a deacon, presbyter, or deacon; there can be no dispute that it is intended to be male, unless one is talking to someone who feels comfortable tossing out clear readings of the NT.

I agree, it's clear to me too. But that's not the criteria for placement in list #1. If you look at the items in the first list, they are all about who Jesus is and His work in salvation history - creation, redemption, glorification. I haven't seen how male ordination is essential to that - rather, it seems more like an important doctrine for the proper health and order of life in the church.

I think male leadership is exemplified in Jesus' ministry: he was male himself, and then he appointed 12 disciples. Nowhere do we see him appointing women as leaders. I think this is also essential, and a sign of a false church and false doctrine is when people choose female spiritual leaders for themselves. I don't think this can be neatly put into "list #2".

Perhaps the entire problem is thinking there is a "list #1" and a "list #2". To give you an example, if we truly believe salvation comes via faith and belief in Jesus, then there are no other requirements. Someone can be living in sin, perhaps cohabiting with a girlfriend, drinking, regularly lying on the job for personal gain, but still be in Jesus' grace and salvation. Would you consider these things to be "list #2"?

Yet we would expect that someone who is a sincere Christ-follower will eventually be convicted to stop doing these things. So my question is why things like ignoring nonresistance gets a free pass, but we wouldn't think if someone as a sincere Christian who beats up his girlfriend, lives in sin with her, gets drunk regularly, and regularly lies.

Yet nonresistance seems a lot more foundational than that. I think killing people is worse than the things in the list I just wrote above.

[Sudsy]

I'm going to put my faith and trust in Jesus and what He did to save me from my sins. To trust in some man's interpretation of the scriptures that adds to what salvation requires gets us into all kinds of determinations of who is saved and who isn't. I will settle for what Paul says is 'of first importance' and 'the Gospel that saves us'. When one believes this in an acceptable way to God, and are born again, we are saved. Period.

One of the problems that often occurs in the more strict groups of Christians is that they are not satisfied that the way of salvation is a way that Jesus provided for us to accept as a gift and not as something we must earn through religious practises. There is no doubt in my mind that when a person accepts this gift, their life changes as the Holy Spirit comes to live within. However, I also believe Christians are not perfect and our judgments of other's salvation can be very wrong. God knows those who are His, we don't. Some who are living very religious lives may turn out to not know God in a saving way at all. Jesus talked about some of these who, at judgment day, would come spouting off about their religious acts and Jesus said that He never knew them. Did they fool other believers ? My guess is they did and this continues to happen today.

Regardless of what others think about one's salvation, what you and God know to be the truth is all that matters in the end. So are you saved ?

[Neto]

I've said this here many times before, so maybe I shouldn't say it again, but here goes anyway:
I do not see 'nonresistance' as a primary doctrine, HOWEVER it is a natural outcome of something about which the Scripture is very clear - that Jesus the Messiah is the King of a kingdom, the Kingdom of God. We are taught to follow Jesus, obeying his teaching. That means that we do not take up tools of violence against anyone. It's all bound up together. I really think that separating everything into different doctrines is not following Jesus, or the Scripture. (I have a deep debt of gratitude to my brothers in Christ who are former animists, through whom I was taught to look at the whole, not the individual parts, as though constructing some sort of 'report card', to see what my grade is.)

[Oh, and I would certainly not put the 'doctrine of the trinity' in any category of essentials. Said that before, too, so no one should be shocked anymore.]