Defining Sound Doctrine

[Guest]

I'm going to post this here as it's a follow up to a question I asked Steve during his visit to the Portland area.

Steve (or others),

I was privileged to meet you in person for the first time last Saturday night in Camas. I want to thank you for visiting- it was an enjoyable and interesting evening.

I’d like to follow up on a point you made in answering a question of mine.

You made a statement to the effect (correct me if I’m somewhat off on this) that “sound teaching” in the New Testament was usually (I think you said usually?) referring to behavior rather than belief.

I appreciate this statement because of the fact that Western Christians have perhaps too often focused almost exclusively on “right belief” in thinking about sound doctrine. I think pointing out how the “sound teaching” of the apostles stressed behavior is a welcome corrective.

However, it seems to me that the apostles were indeed often interested in passing on “correct belief” as part of what they meant by “sound doctrine”. Often there is no distinct line between belief and behavior in their teaching. This makes sense, I think, because behaviors tend to flow from belief.

Wouldn’t you agree that considerable sections of the New Testament are actually focused on insisting particular beliefs as a way of defining what authentic Christian faith really is (or isn’t)? For instance, Galatians, though it has a lot of practical import in regard to behavior, is largely a theological argument stressing particular beliefs. Hebrews is similar. Romans as well. I mean, the list goes on and on.

Why this is important goes back to the question I asked you about what might be considered essential Christian beliefs. You did an excellent job outlining why secondary doctrines ought not divide the body of Christ, and why defining someone’s salvation by their adherence to a list of beliefs is dubious, but as far as determining what is the sound teaching of the church, what can be established as primary doctrine?

You mentioned that you thought at the most basic level, Christians are simply called to submit to the Lordship of Jesus. This the disciples did even before they were aware of doctrines such as the Incarnation, for example. But even though that was enough for them to enter into the beginnings of a relationship with Christ, it seems that the New Testament spends a lot of time explaining what authentic submission to Jesus looks like and the essential beliefs it does entail.

Could essential Christian belief be defined as the things that are main and plain in Scripture? Of course, there is the counter that what seems plain to one person can be seen as nuanced to another. Still, it seems apparent that the apostles thought that certain beliefs could define the dividing line between true Christian faith and false teaching (e.g. Galatians 1-2, 1 John 4, etc.) Might not those kinds of things be considered “essential Christian doctrine” (the incarnation, the atonement (in general), salvation by grace through faith, etc..)?

Lastly, as a follow up, it also seems in the New Testament that “sound doctrine” includes not only teaching about behavior and belief, but also about historical events with apologetic merit. Thus, we have the earliest “creeds” of the church (1 Corinthians 15:1-8 ) outlining acceptance of certain historical events as a way of defining authentic Christian expression. Accepting the historical accuracy of certain events seems a lot more like “belief” than it does “behavior”, and by Paul’s use of the phrase “handed down” in regard to this creed, it seems that Paul thought of these kinds of shorthand statements as propositions which helped define the kingdom of God from competing heresies of his day.

Further thoughts?

Josh

[Guest]

Hi Josh,

It was good to meet you also. Some time ago, this question came up at the forum and I wrote something in response, which can be found here:

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... highlight=

Briefly, I think that beliefs are important, but that opinions are less so. What I mean is that a person must believe in the integrity of God and in the identity of Christ in order to be a Christian. Those beliefs then lead to being receptive to instruction and correction from God and from Christ—which instruction and correction, I believe, come primarily through the scriptures (2 Tim.3:16-17). Until we reach complete understanding of all scriptures, our opinions about many things will be in flux, but that does not change the identity of whom we believe (2 Tim.1:12).

What is essential is that a person has taken Christ's yoke upon himself/herself and is learning from Him (Matt.11:29). Over time, the Spirit leads a person into greater understanding of the things of God, and, given enough time, into all truth (John 14:26; 16:13; 1 John 2:27).

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God." (1 Cor.2:12)

The role of a pastor/teacher, like yourself (which may be the concern that leads you to inquire) is, I think, to teach the truth of scripture as faithfully and humbly as he can. In the process, he will impart knowledge to his hearers of the things that are plain, while his teaching on unclear matters will improve along with his own personal growth in perceiving the truth.

As a result, all Christians will believe that there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ. All will know that Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah. All will know that Jesus is enthroned as supreme Ruler and Lord, and must be submitted to. They will know that Jesus' death and resurrection were somehow used by God to bring about man's salvation, and that man's salvation would have been impossible without it. All will know that they must love God supremely, and love others as they love themselves—and that God calls His children to live holy lives.

There is nothing unclear about any of these doctrines, so I assume they are the ones that a true disciple cannot miss when reading the scriptures. Since they cannot be missed, they will be seen and believed by anyone who is truly submitted to Christ and His teachings. I suppose this would make them "essential." This would be my take on this question.

[Guest]

Thanks so much, Steve.

From a pastoral perspective over the last several years in my life, these issues are a lot more pertinent. When we started as a church, Aletheia created a statement of faith with the intention of focusing it on what we considered the bare essentials. So many of us have had to leave other churches which insisted on secondary doctrines for membership.

It's funny though, actually trying to make a basic statement of essential beliefs. Clearly, the list might be smaller than one originally thinks. I'm not sure the "whittling process" is complete.

I really appreciate your points here and in the other article, such as this:

Obviously, one is not saved by behavior apart from faith, and "faith" must have some specific informational content. Thus there are things that one must believe, in order to be a true Christian, but these things are not so narrowly defined as we might have expected them to be.

Thanks.

Others?

[Guest]

I think Steve's final two paragraphs describe the essential beliefs well.

If a church comes up with a "Statement of Faith" which requires its adherents to hold to beliefs beyond that ---- beliefs with which some disciples disagree ----- it has the effect of dividing the CHURCH.

But Christ's purpose is to unite his disciples not to divide them.

...so that they may be one, as we are one. John 17:11

This unity is not predicated on holding identical philosophical and/or theological beliefs, but upon "forsaking all" and becoming disciples of Jesus, living our lives, no longer for ourselves, but for HIM.

[Guest]

This might be a bit beyond the thread topic but is related and worth sharing, I think.
Jesus Creed:
Blog discussion of Roger Olson's new book:
"Reformed and Always Reforming:
The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology"

Distinctions are made between what some see as "dogma" (absolutely necessary beliefs) and "doctrinal opinions" (which can be seen as secondary and/or non-essential beliefs; even though one may agree with certain "dogmatic opinions"). Put another way, one can be a Calvinist (or Arminian) and be fully convinced; but yet not set this out as an "absolute necessity."

Hank Hanegraaff's site has a couple articles written by Norman Geisler that define what (orthodox) beliefs are necessary for salvation and what other (orthodox) beliefs aren't required (to be saved).
Link to the best summary:
The Essential Doctrines of the Christian Faith
(Part 2): A LOGICAL APPROACH
by Norman L. Geisler

I don't fully go along with everything Geisler wrote but it's a good overview ("things to think about").

an excerpt

"Not all soteriological essentials are necessary to be believed in order to be saved. For example, the virgin birth is nowhere stated as part of what is necessary to be believed in order to be saved; nonetheless, if Jesus were not actually born of a virgin, then He would have been sinful like the rest of the natural-born sons of Adam (Rom. 5:12f); and if He were sinful, then He could not be our Savior from sin. There is, therefore, a distinct difference between what must be true in order for us to be saved and what must be believed in order to be saved.

Someone, likewise, could not believe, or even could disbelieve, in the second coming of Christ and still be saved. If there were no second coming, however, then he could not be saved in the complete sense of some day being saved from the very presence of sin (glorification)."

In the first paragraph I differ in that: If Christ was not born of a virgin, it doesn't necessitate that he would have a "sinful nature" (which is an imported idea in theology). Anyway, I just posted these links for stuff to think about.

I think we tend to think of "faith" mostly in terms of mental assent to certain truths (this attitude has been fostered by the careful defining of orthodoxy at the ecumenical councils). Once we think of faith this way, we may tend to add more and more truths to the list of those that belong to the essential faith. But I think "faith," in scripture, is more concerned with "trust" and having a relationship based upon trust in God and in Christ, even where one's specific theological information may be confused. If it is true that God has "hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and has revealed them to Babes" (Matt.11:25), then we must assume that illiterate and unsophisticated people, who have little or no theological training, can have such a faith as pleases God. The addition of theological savvy may well enhance an existing faith, but can not be essential for salvation, else only philosophically-oriented and biblically-trained people could be saved.

Very well said, imo. (None of us have every doctrinal mystery solved).
Along these lines I'm exploring Roger Olson's ideas about Pietism and/or the Pietists of which he, a classical Arminian, claims to be. The Pietists, he wrote, “revel in transforming experiences of God’s Spirit, Jesus-piety, and a sometimes seemingly cavalier attitude toward tradition.”

He contrasts Pietists with Puritans (Calvinists). I haven't read his book and guess I'm getting off-topic by now....