Primary Doctrines Versus Secondary Doctrines?

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3123
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Primary Doctrines Versus Secondary Doctrines?

Post by darinhouston » Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:57 pm

anochria wrote:I think the loaded term "primary or essential doctrines" needs to be unpacked a bit.

One might define primary doctrines as those that need to be believed for salvation. I believe that "list" should be a short one, akin to what some of you are suggesting: belief and reliance on Christ's atoning death, his resurrection, the Lordship of Christ, etc. (Of course even those issues are fraught with complexities)

But on the other hand, when I tend to think of "primary doctrines" I'm not thinking of a litmus test for salvation: I'm thinking of the beliefs and practices and behaviors that should be considered essential to Christianity (or genuine Christian belief). This list would be much bigger for all of us, I think, though we would have even more disagreement on certain points (along the lines of paidion wrote).
I agree completely with Steve's response -- I also am not thinking of a litmus test for salvation, though, since I believe one can possibly be "saved" without such a specific "belief." Also, one can "believe" (see demons) without submitting, so that's not the best test anyway perhaps. Primary in this context, I believe, is that which we should require to consider one to be a Christian.

"Belief" and "Salvation," likewise require unpacking, but that digresses quickly into the non-essentials. Hence the post, I suppose...

User avatar
anochria
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:40 pm
Location: Clackamas, OR
Contact:

Re: Primary Doctrines Versus Secondary Doctrines?

Post by anochria » Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:14 am

steve wrote: Of course, many Christians would include as a necessity, a particular doctrine of how the death of Christ atoned for our sins. Paul's gospel preaching included the affirmation that Christ "died for our sins" (1 Cor.15:3), though, as you know, there have been various theories among Christians as to the import of that phrase "for our sins." Some believe one and some another theory of the atonement—and the one I think I and most evangelicals believe was not even taught, apparently, until the twelfth century. I think there must be room for some discussion and disagreement among Christians as to the exact effects that Christ's dying had upon the problem of sin. The apostolic preaching in Acts never explained how Christ's death accomplished the remission of our sins, and sometimes mentioned Christ's death without making any reference at all to its atoning significance. Strange, I know! It's not what I would have expected, based upon my upbringing.

As far as the necessity of understanding the atonement to be saved is concerned, I am not sure what to hold out for. I think, if a person can sincerely say "I am saved because of Christ's death and resurrection" (no matter what theory he holds as to the functioning of the atoning death of Christ), I can accept that person as being a brother—assuming the other qualifications also are present.
The exact mechanism BY WHICH we are saved (theory of atonement) is of course secondary to the basic facts THAT we are saved and THROUGH WHOM we are saved (through Jesus). My point wasn't that a certain theory of the atonement should be considered primary, just that ATONEMENT itself should be considered primary.

If you are loading belief in Jesus' atoning death and resurrection into your understanding of Jesus' Lordship, fine. But it just goes (imo) to show that while long and detailed statements of faith may be untenable, short ones can run into similar difficulties.
Pastor Josh Coles, Aletheia Christian Fellowship
Visit the Aletheia Discussion Forums

User avatar
anochria
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:40 pm
Location: Clackamas, OR
Contact:

Re: Primary Doctrines Versus Secondary Doctrines?

Post by anochria » Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:18 am

"Belief" and "Salvation," likewise require unpacking, but that digresses quickly into the non-essentials. Hence the post, I suppose...
:D

Yes, it's a tricky subject.

Our fellowship really emphasizes freedom of perspective, conscience, and healthy and respectful debate about secondary things. But, of course, that begs the question- which things are really primary? And what are we ultimately willing to "go to the mat" over? It's a fair question to be asked, and one that deserved the best answer possible, even if that answer isn't as cut and dry as any of us would like (except God that is, and I suspect He has good reasons for leaving it that way)
Pastor Josh Coles, Aletheia Christian Fellowship
Visit the Aletheia Discussion Forums

User avatar
christopher
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:50 pm

Re: Primary Doctrines Versus Secondary Doctrines?

Post by christopher » Thu Feb 09, 2012 1:42 am

But it just goes (imo) to show that while long and detailed statements of faith may be untenable, short ones can run into similar difficulties.
Excellent! so the reason for having a "statement of faith" is ??

User avatar
jriccitelli
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Primary Doctrines Versus Secondary Doctrines?

Post by jriccitelli » Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:46 am

I agree that things of Primary importance are worth going to the mat over, so constructive debate is well worth it if we can do so for His sake. Jesus went to the cross for truths sake, yet even still He said; 'Father forgive them they do not know what they are saying'
So I propose having a good sense of humor and a good attitude is the most important primary doctrine.

I have said; if you can't offer a handshake when you leave someone's home you should have never went in.
On the other hand, one time after a friendly but heated debate, I had a nice Jehovah's Witness lady say to me as she was leaving our home; "I was happy when I arrived here, now I am not" I said to her; "I would rather know the truth than be happy"

I think that even though many of us have different views over some of the leading doctrines of Christianity, it seems that some of the views are 'close enough' to be on the same path (And some are not). I would 'rather' focus on what we have in common, but I think I have witnessed that it is the cracks in the foundation that grow wider and wider and soon enough the whole faith collapses. So while it is still day, I tend to try and heal the cracks, rather than trying to continue to gloss over the problem areas. And for the most part I am always glad I did, for the friendships 'usually' grow stronger and more meaningful as a result.
But as in construction, I would much 'rather' build something up (New construction), than repair old construction. But that’s life, and entropy affects theology too.
Last edited by jriccitelli on Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jriccitelli
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Primary Doctrines Versus Secondary Doctrines?

Post by jriccitelli » Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:08 am

Each theologian may have his own canon of theological firsts, and I know some will disagree with me also, but I feel God gave us 'His' firsts in Genesis. And I think many of our major doctrines are founded in Genesis 1-6 (1-6 also includes marriage, grace, the fall, the test, the curse, the answer, the serpent, the answer to why there is suffering, and more).

(I feel that teaching a foundation is more important than getting someone to accept a creed (Or a statement of faith) that they may know nothing about. That’s why I always seem to have to 'go back' to the following first 3 doctrines with someone before I go any further, although I spend most my time on numbers 5 and 11, below)

The following would be my list of primary / foundational Doctrines;

1. That God exists. That He is the only One. That other gods are false. That He is real, thinking and knowable. That He is 'all knowing' as 'witnessed to' by the fantastic design and phenomenon of 'Creation'.

2. That He is our Creator. That humans are created by God, along with everything else. (Although some Christians seem to be able to believe in Evolution, this is one 'huge' crack in their foundation)

3. That God has not kept silent. It is necessary that we 'believe' He has given us His 'Word', and that it is 'truth'.
(So it is that without establishing Gods Word as His, all of the following doctrines fall, or fail, having no foundation)

4. That we are not God, nor are we like Him. We are 'created' by Him; beings made only in His 'image'.
(You would think this is obvious, but Christians have 'also' been embracing the eastern thought of men becoming like gods)

5. That we are sinners, even the best of us sin (And that self'-improvement is not the answer).

6. That sin is destructive. That sin matters a lot to God. That sin is no small matter, and that sin is the reason we experience death. Death is a reality, because sin is a reality.

7. That there is a penalty beyond death for sin. That we should have a fear of God, and of Judgment day. Which means punishment (Because; see #5), for what is judgment without penalty or reward.

8. That there was a payment for sin; The Cross, His Atonement, His Sacrifice.

9. That we must Repent, and turn to God. That repentance must be sincere, for God is not mocked.

10. This Jesus was not just a man, but was also the Son of God (Or, God the Son).
I agree that maybe you don’t have to 'comprehend' His Deity, but it is of ultimate importance to know he was 'Gods' favored, provided, pleasing, promised, anointed, and 'only' offering for our sins. Jesus did say that you 'must'; "believe that I Am He" (John 8:24, 58).

11. That we are not saved by works, but we are saved by Grace.
That it is not by works that we are made righteous, but it is by faith that we are pleasing to God. And by faith it means to Believe and to Trust God, and His Word. And yet, works are the purpose and evidence of faith.

12. That there is a Hell, and a second death. The alternative to this reality would be that there needs to be a second birth, there needs to be a new life in Christ, a new heart and a new Spirit.

13. The doctrines of Heaven and Angels, and things to come are all of relatively equal importance but it seems that they mean nothing if the aforementioned are not established first. This is the case if we focus on salvation as foremost instead of peripherals. It seems we need to see a change of heart, before we see a change in behavior.

Millennialism, Nephilim, What color the church carpet should be, the length of men's hair and women's skirts, what style of music in church, these are essentially the most common church debates, but you can decide their order of importance.
Last edited by jriccitelli on Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
anochria
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:40 pm
Location: Clackamas, OR
Contact:

Re: Primary Doctrines Versus Secondary Doctrines?

Post by anochria » Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:47 pm

christopher wrote:
But it just goes (imo) to show that while long and detailed statements of faith may be untenable, short ones can run into similar difficulties.
Excellent! so the reason for having a "statement of faith" is ??
To keep pesky elders in line.... :lol: ;) (Chris and I have some disagreement on statements of faith- we're just modeling our values for all to see ;) )

No, but, seriously, I think a statement of faith can be helfpul, not as a salvation litmus test, or an an aboslute final list of dogma, but as an outline of the general understanding of what a community (or the leaders of a community) sees as the plain teachings of Scripture. Bascially a thumbnail sketch of some points that the community/ leaders think are worth going to the mat over.

And, by the way, lest "go to the mat" be misunderstood, I don't mean that in a hostile way. Much agreed that we need to season all our interactions with others of different perspectives with grace, humor, and humility. It's just to say, this there are some doctrines (or practices) that will non-negotiable* for said community.

*Non-negotiable doesn't mean non-debatable, either. That would mean asking people to turn their brains off.
Pastor Josh Coles, Aletheia Christian Fellowship
Visit the Aletheia Discussion Forums

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Primary Doctrines Versus Secondary Doctrines?

Post by steve » Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:28 pm

To me, an honest acceptance of the authority of scripture would be sufficient "statement of faith" to define my circle of acceptable fellowship. I realize that cultists say they accept the Bible's authority, but I used the modifier "honest." Too many Christians, whether cultic, denominational, or non-denominational, are not honestly submitted to scripture, but are agenda-driven, refusing to recognize any scriptural statement that disagrees with their theological hobbyhorses.

I don't care how agreeable a person's theology may be to my own, if they simply want to convince everyone of their own special viewpoint, I won't be spending much time in fellowship with them. But, of course, this is not a problem in their particular beliefs, but in their attitude and character. Humility, mutual consideration, a loving spirit, and submission to the Word of God are the things that are necessary to proper Christian fellowship, regardless what theology is in the mix.

If a person has a special viewpoint which I would personally tolerate, but which seems to disturb or divide the fellowship, I would expect that person to agree to keep such views to himself, for the sake of unity. When I first became an amillennialist, I realized that this view would be regarded as heretical in any church with which I was then familiar. I decided that I would never speak on the subject, so as to maintain good fellowship with the brethren. Eventually, I was associating with believers who did not care what one believed on this subject, and I was able to participate in dialogue with others there who had other views. Unity is not based upon complete agreement about theological opinions, but on humility and honesty among those who all desire to please the Lord and edify one another.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3123
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Primary Doctrines Versus Secondary Doctrines?

Post by darinhouston » Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:47 pm

steve wrote:I realize that cultists say they accept the Bible's authority.
This sort of raises another question as to the value of a statement of faith -- take Mormons for example -- they could agree to most statements of faith, but the problem is they frequently use terms to mean things different than we do, so you achieve nothing if you get agreement without shared understanding. I have read a good number of statements I could agree with but know from the context of the organization that they wouldn't be comfortable with my acknowledgement once I clarified my position -- so, again -- what's the point?

User avatar
anochria
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:40 pm
Location: Clackamas, OR
Contact:

Re: Primary Doctrines Versus Secondary Doctrines?

Post by anochria » Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:14 pm

steve wrote:To me, an honest acceptance of the authority of scripture would be sufficient "statement of faith" to define my circle of acceptable fellowship.
But of course the "authority of Scripture" is also a majorly loaded concept, and, to boot, one that is not even as well explained within Scripture as certain other doctrines or teachings. Seems like you're raising the bar considerably higher than other minimal "statements of faith" I've seen presented.

Wouldn't you accept someone in fellowship who was not persuaded of the complete authority of Scripture but who believed in Jesus' death, resurrection, and Lordship?

If you're going to throw in "the authority of Scripture" as some kind of criterion of fellowship, then you're possibly going beyond what even I'm advocating.

Maybe I'm missing something?
Pastor Josh Coles, Aletheia Christian Fellowship
Visit the Aletheia Discussion Forums

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”