Primary Doctrines Versus Secondary Doctrines?

[anochria]

Just curious to hear what Steve or others would say in regard to the question: how do we distinguish between essential Christian doctrines (those without which we really wouldn't have authentic Christianity) and secondary doctrines, which we acknowledge as debatable?

[Paidion]

I don't think there exists an obvious criterion for differentiating between Essential Doctrines and Debatable Doctrines. However, I think we all tend to make judgments concerning the category into which a doctrine falls. For example, I think the deity of Christ is an Essential Doctrine, whereas others disagree with my position. Some think the doctrine of the Trinity is an Essential Doctrine, whereas I disagree.

And, of course, I think belief in a literal thousand year reign of Christ on earth is essential. (Just kidding)

[darinhouston]

I might say primary is (1) first and ultimate cause and purpose of the Father; (2) Lordship of Christ and the need for repentance and surrender/commitment to that Lordship -- all else is secondary (though still important).

[steve]

I think Darin is correct.

[Homer]

Seems to me every commandment Jesus gave, including baptism, would be primary (or essential) doctrine, as per the commission Jesus gave to the Church.

[jriccitelli]

"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And He said to him, " 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.'38 This is the great and foremost commandment.39 The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Matt 22:37-39)

It would seem that any doctrine that concerns our love for God would be foremost, and anything that concerns our love for our neighbor, or each other, as secondary. But note what was considered of 'primary importance' to all Jews; 'The Law itself' which was the primary essential to all Judaism, the foundation of all Christian doctrine.

"...being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek. Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain...the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food...Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. And this we will do, if God permits" (Hebrews 5:9 -6:3)

(Some principles within the Law also seem to be of more essential than secondary importance)

But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here. But if you had known what this means, 'I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent… How much more valuable then is a man than a sheep! (Matt 12:6-7,12)

"Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold? And, 'Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering on it, he is obligated.'19 You blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering?... 23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. (Matt 23:16)

Yet as Christ is before all and in all (Doctrine), any study of scripture would be the study of Him, "and these things were written so that you might Believe".

[RICHinCHRIST]

I was very blessed by the following thread on this topic at the old forum: http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... essentials

[CThomas]

Here's what concerns me about Steve's cogent analysis in the older forum. Maybe "concerns" is too strong a word -- rather, I have a question about it. Didn't Pual anathematize the Judaizers? If so, and assuming that we are to do the same, then doesn't that extend beyond the bare-bones minimum beliefs you guys are specifying? Wouldn't the Judaizers have accepted those minimum facts? I may be completely wrong, but I had always had the impression that Paul indicated that the basic understanding of the gospel of grace was central enough to require acceptance of on pain of separation. And while it's true that the Judaizers were themselves attempting to set up binding requirements on everyone else, I had the sense that some of Paul's language extended to requiring adherance to the core understanding of the Gospel as being apart from works, etc. Am I way off base on all of this?

CThomas

[steve]

Hi CThomas,

The presence of the strong words of the apostles about certain sects (especially the Judaizers) definitely challenges a ready acceptance of my thesis. There are certain considerations that weigh with me in harmonizing this tension in my mind:

1. When the apostles were alive, there was no excuse for any Christian to hold to any false doctrine. The apostles were authorized by Christ to speak for Him, and to rebel against their authority was to rebel against (reject) Christ's authority. Thus, the Judaizers, Gnostic antinomians, and others in the church who directly opposed Paul were not just making a theological blunder, but were opposing apostolic authority. There never needed to be any doubt about Paul's actual beliefs, since those who found them unclear could simply write to him and ask for clarification.

Since the apostles have died, most wrong theology in the church has not arisen from anyone's desire to oppose the authority of the apostles or their writings. In fact, there are people of many theological persuasions who sincerely believe that their views are the most correct interpretation of the apostolic writings. There is no possibility of consulting with the apostles today about such things, and if Paul or Peter were to return and clarify the questions about which we have controversies, I believe, most parties on every side of the issues would submit to their teachings. Thus, the person with wrong doctrine today may not in any measure be the parallel of the heretic of the first century, who knew exactly what the apostles were saying, but who rebelliously opposed the apostles for personal (often political) reasons.

This means that we ought to extend more grace to those who are doing their best to be faithful to scripture and to Christ, but who (as we imagine) are understanding things wrongly. Only in the context of loving and accepting those who see things differently are we likely to have constructive dialogue with them, resulting in either us or them being brought closer to the correct understanding.

2. Most of the time, what the apostles called "doctrine" (literally, "teaching") was not so heavily weighted on the side of theological concepts, as it is in our minds. Teaching, or "doctrine" in the early church, was much more concerned with behavior (e.g., Prov.4:2; Matt.7:28; 28:20; Acts 2:42; 1 Tim.1:10; 2 Tim.3:10; 4:3; Titus 2:1ff — consider the contexts in which the word "doctrine" is embedded in each case).

I believe that what was most objectionable in "Gnostic doctrine" was its reaching that moral behavior was optional. Judaizing doctrine taught that one is "clean" not by moral rectitude as much as by submission to circumcision and Jewish ritual disciplines of cleanness and uncleanness. Bad "doctrines," whatever conceptual mistakes may have lay at their root, always seemed to boil down to minimizing the duty to be governed by the commandments of Christ, and were thereby disregarding His Lordship.

It was not the sincere scruples of Jewish believers about keeping Jewish rituals that bothered Paul, so long as they were submitted to Christ's lordship. If a Jewish believer felt more comfortable in his conscience keeping a sabbath rest or abstaining from un-kosher foods, so long as he was doing it "unto the Lord" (a heart matter), Paul found no reason to object to this (Rom.14:1-6). The problem with the Judaizers was their replacement of Christ's authority as the arbiter of behavior with a substitute—in their case, the Law of Moses.

Today, there are people whose conceptual theology strikes me as very inferior and misguided, but who are clearly committed to Christ as their Lord. The mistakes in their theology do not prevent them from embracing Christ's royal authority as did the heresies which the apostles denounced. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses may, despite their aberrant views, genuinely acknowledge the Lordship of Christ, and sincerely follow Him. This does not mean that their theology does not matter, or ought not to be corrected. The question for us is what God's regards to be their status with Him while they are holding mistaken notions about Him. For that matter, how many of our own notions about Him may turn out to be mistaken, once we have come to "knew, even as we are known"?

[CThomas]

Steve, thanks. These are good points and I'm going to need to devote thought to this because it could substantially change my beliefs about some of these issues in a way that would be very welcome from my own personal point of view. Based on the Judaizing passages and the like I've previously had significant problems even accepting Roman Catholics as brothers in Christ simply because it seemed that they have modified the gospel in somewhat analogous ways, and have thought that Mormons, JWs, etc., were simply beyond the pale. Your contrary perspective is much appreciated.

Regards,

CThomas