Thinking About the Gospel, Part 9

Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, and Part 8.

by Kevin T. Bauder

Practical Fundamentals?

It is past time to bring this series of essays to a close. We have been thinking about the gospel. We began by asking what the gospel is. We then considered the way the gospel defines Christian fellowship. Subsequently, we explored the notion of fundamental doctrines and the way in which they are connected to the gospel.

One aspect of the subject remains unexamined. In the wake of the Reformation, theologians devoted considerable attention to defining the gospel and the fundamental doctrines. In their discussions, they regularly brought up a related topic that we have not discussed. That is the notion of “practical fundamentals.”

To be fair, I should note that they do not often explore this topic, but they do mention it. Apparently, the Reformers and their followers considered certain ways of living to be fundamental to Christianity. While they were most concerned with a doctrinal understanding of the gospel, they also stressed that certain ways of living implied the practical denial of the gospel.

Theologically, the case for practical fundamentals rests upon an understanding that Christianity is more than a system of doctrine. True, the burden of these essays has been that the Christian faith is a system of doctrine. That is why professions of Christianity can and must be evaluated doctrinally. But Christianity is more than simply the affirmation of a creed.

To begin with, no one can genuinely believe the gospel without personally trusting Christ as Savior. A person who has not trusted Christ has not believed the gospel or at least not believed the gospel as a truth pro me. Saving faith consists not merely in knowledge of and assent to certain facts but also in trust. The point of the gospel is that Christ has the authority to save and that He is worthy of trust. It is a call to change our minds (i.e., to repent) about whether sin is worthwhile and whether Christ is qualified to save, placing our confidence in Him as the one who can and will save. Until we have repented and trusted, we stand in the position of those who reject the gospel.

More than that, faith in the gospel implies a changed life. What Christ offers us is not merely salvation from the penalty of our sins but salvation from our sins. Every act of saving faith implies the recognition that Christ will sooner or later take our sins away from us. That is what we have to want when we ask to be saved—to be delivered from our sins. This aspect of the gospel assumes that a person who genuinely believes will experience a transformation of life.

This implies that certain modes of conduct belie a profession of faith in the gospel. People may affirm the right doctrinal statement and even profess to have trusted Christ but live in such a way as to call into question that profession. At some point, we ought to say to such a person, “Christians must not live like you do. If you persist in living that way, we can no longer treat you as a Christian.”

Theologically, the notion of practical fundamentals can be inferred from the transforming nature of the gospel itself. Biblically, the idea of practical fundamentals is pretty clearly stated in the text. Consider 1 Timothy 5:8. “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” Paul does not fault such a person for doctrinal betrayal but for practice that is incompatible with Christianity. Such a person is “worse than an infidel”; in other words, worse than a rank unbeliever. This person has “denied the faith.” Can anyone seriously question that Paul viewed this matter of practice as fundamental?

At some point, a professing believer who persists in error has to be treated as “an heathen man and a publican” (Matt. 18:17). This consideration is probably the factor that explains Paul’s lists of offenses for which church members ought to be disfellowshipped. These offenders include fornicators, the covetous, idolaters, railers, drunkards, and extortioners or swindlers (1 Cor. 5:11). Why does Paul name these sins rather than others? Most likely because these are sins that create public scandal, quickly negating any profession of faith in Christ.

Elsewhere, Paul names certain classes of individuals who “shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” These include fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, the effeminate, “abusers of themselves with mankind” or homosexuals, thieves, the covetous, and extortioners (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Paul is not saying that a believer can never commit one of these acts, but he is implying that a person whose life is patterned by these activities should not be recognized as a believer.

The conclusion seems unavoidable. Some practices are fundamental to Christianity. To live in ways that are inconsistent with those practices is to deny the faith. While no human can judge the heart condition of people who live in those ways, no Christian fellowship ought to be extended to them.

As with doctrines, however, to say that some patterns of conduct are “fundamental” suggests that others are not. At this point in the discussion, the opposite evils of indifferentism and everythingism again rear their heads. Surprisingly, certain versions of Fundamentalism have been guilty of both at the same time.

On the one hand, they have been willing to tolerate the most egregious conduct from those in positions of Christian leadership. They have been willing to excuse greed (covetousness) and shady business deals (extortion), even to cover up sexual immorality (fornication). They have actually glorified raillery (brutal and abusive speech or conduct) into the virtue of “strong leadership.” Do I really need to provide a list of specific cases?

On the other hand, they have been willing to prosecute the minutiae of regulations drawn only from the most tenuous applications of scriptural principle. Students get “shipped” from some schools, not because they have committed a flagrant or obvious moral indiscretion but because they have in their youthful enthusiasm and carelessness accumulated a certain number of demerits. The demerits are often imputed, not because of flagrant and obvious moral infractions but over technical and sometimes obscure violations of institutional policy. In some institutions, students can even receive demerits for not squealing on other students who have naively transgressed some policy. Being “shipped” is, of course, a euphemism for being dismissed, and it is an action that carries lifelong consequences when registered on a college or university transcript. Whether such students ought to be counseled and helped is one question; whether they ought to be penalized in such a draconian manner is another.

Therefore, it seems that we face the same kinds of problems with practical fundamentals that we do with doctrinal fundamentals. Both of these perplexities place the same demand upon us. We ought to do careful study, followed by clear thinking and reasonable conversations, in order to determine where these boundaries lie.

We cannot do all of that at once, and it is too much of a task for a short series of essays. The point with which this series concludes, however, is this: Any Fundamentalism worth saving must take these questions seriously. The problems must not be swept aside in the interest of perpetuating old habits or protecting institutional interests. We must face them frankly and charitably.

Let the conversation begin.

A Closer Walk

William Cowper (1731-1800)

Oh! for a closer walk with God;
A calm and heavenly frame;
A light to shine upon the road
That leads me to the Lamb!

Where is the blessedness I knew
When first I saw the Lord?
Where is the soul-refreshing view
Of Jesus and His Word?

What peaceful hours I once enjoy’d!
How sweet their memory still!
But they have left an aching void,
The world can never fill.

Return, O holy Dove, return
Sweet Messenger of rest!
I hate the sins that made Thee mourn,
And drove Thee from my breast.

The dearest idol I have known,
Whate’er that idol be,
Help me to tear it from Thy throne,
And worship only Thee.

So shall my walk be close with God,
Calm and serene my frame;
So purer light shall mark the road
That leads me to the Lamb.

This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.