Do Peculiarities of Church Traditions protect Essential Doctrines?
Forum category
Does God use the peculiarities of church traditions to protect essentials of the faith? As a wall of stones protects a city, are countless church traditions with nonessential differences a strong, “Multi-Fort Defense” (MFD) of the essentials? Do these nonessential doctrines, secondary convictions and behaviors keep them apart from other church traditions thus safer from errant, outside teaching?
Countless church traditions cling to quite diverse nonessentials. Even the mention of some can elicit strong emotional responses from us, positive or negative - mode of baptism, shorts, women in pants, elder board, bishops, altar calls, revival meetings, drums, southern gospel music, dancing, alcohol, moderate hymns, loud music, foot washing and the list goes on.
Is God’s view, “I am using your secondary convictions, your personal preferences, for a higher purpose – to keep many out that do not agree with the essential doctrines”? Or would the gospel better off if all regenerate churches were herded into one or two giant denominations?
“In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things, charity” - unknown
Peace and joy :)
.
Countless church traditions cling to quite diverse nonessentials. Even the mention of some can elicit strong emotional responses from us, positive or negative - mode of baptism, shorts, women in pants, elder board, bishops, altar calls, revival meetings, drums, southern gospel music, dancing, alcohol, moderate hymns, loud music, foot washing and the list goes on.
Is God’s view, “I am using your secondary convictions, your personal preferences, for a higher purpose – to keep many out that do not agree with the essential doctrines”? Or would the gospel better off if all regenerate churches were herded into one or two giant denominations?
“In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things, charity” - unknown
Peace and joy :)
.
- 1 view
Don’t think so Fred. I tend to think that God graciously uses us despite our foibles and lack of clarity in following Him accurately.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[FredK]I think you might need to do some defining before you can get useful answers. What is a non-essential?
Countless church traditions cling to quite diverse nonessentials. Even the mention of some can elicit strong emotional responses from us, positive or negative - infant baptism, shorts, women in pants, elder board, bishops, altar calls, revival meetings, drums, southern gospel music, dancing, alcohol, moderate hymns, foot washing, Calvinism and the list goes on.
[FredK]St. Augustine didn’t say that. It has been falsely attributed to him. Google it sometime.
“In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things, charity” - St. Augustine.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
What do I mean by “essentials”? I refer to the historic, orthodox, conservative beliefs one accepts to receive salvation - accepting that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died on the Cross to pay the penalty for our sins (- to delete our Judgement Day court case). Another definition would of course include also the Deity of Christ, necessity of crucifixtion and resurrection, Second Coming, inerrancy of original autographs, and a few other views typically found in countless, conservative church, doctrinal creeds.
We know that convictions on sanctification issues (nonessentials) have historically been diverse among redeemed saints as is true today.
Baseed on a Google source there is real doubt as to whether St. Augustine said: ” in essentials unity … ” I will attribute it to “unknown”.
Peace and joy :)
We know that convictions on sanctification issues (nonessentials) have historically been diverse among redeemed saints as is true today.
Baseed on a Google source there is real doubt as to whether St. Augustine said: ” in essentials unity … ” I will attribute it to “unknown”.
Peace and joy :)
Well, Fred, I think you’ve actually asked a number of questions, good questions, that are somewhat entangled in your post. To answer one of them, I do not think that the variety of doctrinal opinions serves any discernible purpose in God’s plan. Doctrinal plurality is not something the church should aim for, although all doctrinal multiformity does not need to be squelched, either.
God calls us to embrace his entire counsel, living according to his every word. If there are significantly varying versions of the Christian life or faith being promoted, either forced suppression of belief or a denominationalism of sorts is inevitable. Denominations that have minimalist doctrinal statements, such as the EFCA, cohere only because they have a remarkably uniform implicit cultural and doctrinal base.
Finally, to your question whether we’d all be better off in a few large denominations, I think there are two ultimate answers that reflect the watershed question of ecclesiology. Either you are an independent or you are a connectionalist. You either believe that the local church was designed to acknowledge other local churches formally and that “church” properly means something beyond the local level, or you think there are really only local churches, perhaps with an invisible or universal “church” tacked on. So, if you’re an independent, the answer is “no, we are not better off with huge denominations, or any denominations, though we may freely associate for certain matters of co-belligerence.” On the other hand, if you are a connectionalist, the answer is, “Yes, in an ideal world, we would have a visible, universal church which would comprehend the local churches.”
God calls us to embrace his entire counsel, living according to his every word. If there are significantly varying versions of the Christian life or faith being promoted, either forced suppression of belief or a denominationalism of sorts is inevitable. Denominations that have minimalist doctrinal statements, such as the EFCA, cohere only because they have a remarkably uniform implicit cultural and doctrinal base.
Finally, to your question whether we’d all be better off in a few large denominations, I think there are two ultimate answers that reflect the watershed question of ecclesiology. Either you are an independent or you are a connectionalist. You either believe that the local church was designed to acknowledge other local churches formally and that “church” properly means something beyond the local level, or you think there are really only local churches, perhaps with an invisible or universal “church” tacked on. So, if you’re an independent, the answer is “no, we are not better off with huge denominations, or any denominations, though we may freely associate for certain matters of co-belligerence.” On the other hand, if you are a connectionalist, the answer is, “Yes, in an ideal world, we would have a visible, universal church which would comprehend the local churches.”
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Chip Van Emmerik] Don’t think so Fred. I tend to think that God graciously uses us despite our foibles and lack of clarity in following Him accurately.Yes Chip, that is what I am endeavoring to say. God works through us despite our frailties. If He did not how could He remain in full control? Sovereign? Martin Luther is quoted as saying that even Satan is God’s Satan. God useds Satan for His purposes even though God does obviously not cause evil.
Peace and joy :)
FredK,
The difference I see between us is that I don’t see the differences as a good thing. When opposing views collide, someone (perhaps everyone?) has to be wrong. That is never honoring or pleasing to God. The best choice would be for us to all be correct and monolithic. Sadly, God does not have perfect servants yet. Gladly, He still uses us despite our errors, but not because of our errors.
The difference I see between us is that I don’t see the differences as a good thing. When opposing views collide, someone (perhaps everyone?) has to be wrong. That is never honoring or pleasing to God. The best choice would be for us to all be correct and monolithic. Sadly, God does not have perfect servants yet. Gladly, He still uses us despite our errors, but not because of our errors.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Chip Van Emmerik] FredK,How can opposing views collide if big hearted believers respect others’ liberty in nonessentials? Even siblings do not agree on everything - every issue in life. Must some one necessarily be wrong? God loves diversity - from spiritual gifts to the parade of strange plants and funny animals. (1 Cor 12.4-6).
The difference I see between us is that I don’t see the differences as a good thing. When opposing views collide, someone (perhaps everyone?) has to be wrong. That is never honoring or pleasing to God. The best choice would be for us to all be correct and monolithic. Sadly, God does not have perfect servants yet. Gladly, He still uses us despite our errors, but not because of our errors.
Yes Fred, but here we are talking about two opposing views of truth. For instance, Baptist views of independent, congregational polity cannot jive with Presbyterian hierarchical polity. Only one (at best) can be right. In your opening line you mention “essentials of the faith.” Those doctrinal truths are what I am talking about, not “liberty in non-essentials.” That’s a totally different discussion.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Chip Van Emmerik] Yes Fred, but here we are talking about two opposing views of truth. For instance, Baptist views of independent, congregational polity cannot jive with Presbyterian hierarchical polity. Only one (at best) can be right. In your opening line you mention “essentials of the faith.” Those doctrinal truths are what I am talking about, not “liberty in non-essentials.” That’s a totally different discussion.Perhaps we need to clarify definitions? What is an “essential?” I take the rather widely accepted view, IMO that it refers to the bare bones truth to become a believer - nothing more. OK? For example a small child that knows he has done wrong and that Jesus forgives that sin can be saved. This makes the ground level at the foot of the Cross. Educated and uneducated third world illiterates can come also to our precious Savior Jesus. Amen?
Beyond this line in the sand diverse systematic theologies and Biblical theologies come into to play. If you prefer to call the “essentials” by another name OK but what do you call the bare bones truth needed to repent and be regenerated, adopted. Whatever you call it, I am simply saying God wants to protect these.
Chip my brother, do I hear you resenting the fact that your entire systematic theology is some how not center stage for all believers? All others are wrong? I see wonderful fruit across various regenerate traditions. Do you not see it? Do you have God in a box?
[FredK] How can opposing views collide if big hearted believers respect others’ liberty in nonessentials? Even siblings do not agree on everything - every issue in life. Must some one necessarily be wrong? God loves diversity - from spiritual gifts to the parade of strange plants and funny animals. (1 Cor 12.4-6).I’m not quite sure that I’m following, but let me ask anyway: You are saying that we don’t all need to be, say, independent Baptists, to be Christian, because God loves variety - as long as we all agree on the same core doctrines, right?
Here’s a couple questions then:
1. What traditions are you referring to when you say that they can protect core doctrines? If anything, I think that traditions are inherently un-protective, since the natural bent of man is to elevate traditions and establish works-righteousness (see Mark 7:1-13, Romans 1, Colossians 2:6-10)
2. What are your core doctrines that you’re referring to? If you’re talking Covenant-Dispensationalism, I think I can agree with you. If you’re talking more substantial stuff - like theories on inerrancy - then you’re wrong.
Side note - Disunity, as far as I understand it, is the direct result of sin. Sin separates. Christ will ultimately bring about everyone into two groups - those who reject and those who believe (Matthew 13:24-30, Mt 13:36-43; John 17:1-4, 17:20-26; Ephesians 2:11-22) and then unify all believers in the new heavens and new earth. That being said, because of sin, we try to determine the best outworking that we can from the Scriptures, and that results in different perspectives. Differences in doctrine are not ideal, but are to be expected. Eventually, they will be eliminated.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jay C.][FredK]
1. What traditions are you referring to when you say that they can protect core doctrines? If anything, I think that traditions are inherently un-protective, since the natural bent of man is to elevate traditions and establish works-righteousness (see Mark 7:1-13, Romans 1, Colossians 2:6-10)
2. What are your core doctrines that you’re referring to? If you’re talking Covenant-Dispensationalism, I think I can agree with you. If you’re talking more substantial stuff - like theories on inerrancy - then you’re wrong.
quote]
Rob, are you thoughtfully reading what I have already written? For example, you ask what traditions I refer to? My initial comments give numerous examples, my friend.
Defining Church Traditions: even the ‘best,’ redeemed, churches have some practices, habits, that other redeemed churches do not follow. True? I call these ‘traditions.” Would you prefer another name for them?
Defining Core doctrines: those on which all true believers agree on - how to be saved. Beyond this, good men, godly men, differ.
I as a though going believer in Baptism of Believers have much to do with Pedobaptists? The reverse is also true. Sorry, but the question has serious Soteriological implications. Why do you think Baptists weren’t welcome in Massachusetts Bay Colony? We were on the outs with the strict Reformed (Scottish\English and European) long before Dispensationalism was definitively formulated.
While infant baptism can seem to look like a “denominational peculiarity” to some in 2011, it is worth noting many of our continental brethren lost their lives due to their adherence to believers baptism. The same can be said for the distinctive of the Independence and Autonomy of the Local Church. Further, Pre-Fundamentalism Baptists had a tradition of not sharing pulpits. This changed when Modernism reared its ugly head and fighting it trumped some of the denominational squabbling.
While infant baptism can seem to look like a “denominational peculiarity” to some in 2011, it is worth noting many of our continental brethren lost their lives due to their adherence to believers baptism. The same can be said for the distinctive of the Independence and Autonomy of the Local Church. Further, Pre-Fundamentalism Baptists had a tradition of not sharing pulpits. This changed when Modernism reared its ugly head and fighting it trumped some of the denominational squabbling.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
[Rob Fall] I as a though going believer in Baptism of Believers have much to do with Pedobaptists? The reverse is also true. Sorry, but the question has serious Soteriological implications. Why do you think Baptists weren’t welcome in Massachusetts Bay Colony? We were on the outs with the strict Reformed (Scottish\English and European) long before Dispensationalism was definitively formulated.
Rob, I take your points but if God’s Spirit is indwelling a pedeoBaptist will I set up a higher standard of adoption into Christ’s Body? Are we holier than God Himself? Are you totally devoid of all error and frailties?
Are you saying that one cannot be saved without the right view of baptism? Is that not salvation by faith plus works? Are you not adding works to John 3.16; Roman 6.23?
I disagree with my friends who baptise infants but we have much more to build warm, godly relationships around. Paul majored on majors. “I determined to know nothing among you accept Christ and Him crucified” 1 Cor 2.2
Fred forests of trees have been made into books on this topic. Suffice to say:
I’m not the one who’s adding “baptism” to salvation.
I’m not the one who speaks of “covenant” children.
I’m not the one who takes a sacralist view of society.
Yes, I can have limited fellowship with my pedobaptist brothers. But, it’s limited to a personal level.
I’m not the one who’s adding “baptism” to salvation.
I’m not the one who speaks of “covenant” children.
I’m not the one who takes a sacralist view of society.
Yes, I can have limited fellowship with my pedobaptist brothers. But, it’s limited to a personal level.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Rob, are you thoughtfully reading what I have already written? For example, you ask what traditions I refer to? My initial comments give numerous examples, my friend.Hi Fred-
Defining Church Traditions: even the ‘best,’ redeemed, churches have some practices, habits, that other redeemed churches do not follow. True? I call these ‘traditions.” Would you prefer another name for them?
Defining Core doctrines: those on which all true believers agree on - how to be saved. Beyond this, good men, godly men, differ.
I did skim the list of traditions that you suggested. I disagree with you strongly that “infant baptism” and “Calvinism” (however it’s defined) are traditions. They aren’t traditions, but doctrinal positions that are held, and I would like to point out that they are doctrines with very far reaching consequences, as Rob noted in post #12. People died because they would not allow the teaching of baptismal regeneration in their churches or areas. “Calvinism” - however a person chooses to define it - touches on things like the depravity of man, the security of the believer, and the extent of Christ’s atonement. None of those things are traditions, and all of them are critical to Christianity.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jay C.] SNIPI would add our brothers and sisters in Chirst were persecuted for not allowing their infants to be baptized. This all goes to the sacralist nature of Lutheranism and Calvinism.
Infant baptism” and “Calvinism” (however it’s defined) are SNIPdoctrinal positions that are held, and I would like to point out that they are doctrines with very far reaching consequences, as Rob noted in post #12. People died because they would not allow the teaching of baptismal regeneration in their churches or areas. “Calvinism” - however a person chooses to define it - touches on things like the depravity of man, the security of the believer, and the extent of Christ’s atonement. None of those things are traditions, and all of them are critical to Christianity.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
[Jay C1. Jay, of course I believe the total depravity of man (Gen 6.5); eternal security (Jn 6.37; 10.28) atonement (Eph 1.7; Rom 5.6,8). But these were Biblical doctrines long before Calvin was born and later discovered them. Right?
I did skim the list of traditions that you suggested. I disagree with you strongly that “infant baptism” and “Calvinism” (however it’s defined) are traditions. They aren’t traditions, but doctrinal positions that are held, and I would like to point out that they are doctrines with very far reaching consequences, as Rob noted in post #12. People died because they would not allow the teaching of baptismal regeneration in their churches or areas. “Calvinism” - however a person chooses to define it - touches on things like the depravity of man, the security of the believer, and the extent of Christ’s atonement. None of those things are traditions, and all of them are critical to Christianity.
2. Therefore I choose not to call them tradition because they pre-existed Calvin, et al. Nor are they only found in Reformed churches today. Calvinism has no monopoly of these essentials. Right? They are not his though he codified them.
3. But if you are implying that one must accept the Shorter Catechism and total Reformed Theology package before he can be redeemed, I see that as works salvation. Excuse me. The same goes for any other theological package. OK? Can we not let grace be grace?
Fred,
1. Of course they are doctrines, and of course they existed long before Calvin.
2. OK - I picked those two, because you said in post #1:
3. No, I don’t think that someone has to ‘buy in’ to the whole package before one can be saved. I don’t even buy in to Reformed theology myself :)
1. Of course they are doctrines, and of course they existed long before Calvin.
2. OK - I picked those two, because you said in post #1:
Countless church traditions cling to quite diverse nonessentials. Even the mention of some can elicit strong emotional responses from us, positive or negative - infant baptism, shorts, women in pants, elder board, bishops, altar calls, revival meetings, drums, southern gospel music, dancing, alcohol, moderate hymns, foot washing, Calvinism and the list goes on.So I thought that you were equating Calvinism with traditions. And no, Calvinism doesn’t have the monopoly of essentials - which is why I don’t call myself a Calvinist.
3. No, I don’t think that someone has to ‘buy in’ to the whole package before one can be saved. I don’t even buy in to Reformed theology myself :)
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jay C.] Fred,
, So I thought that you were equating Calvinism with traditions. And no, Calvinism doesn’t have the monopoly of essentials - which is why I don’t call myself a Calvinist.
Jay, excuse me for wrongly inferring that Calvinism is [totally] a tradition. It includes some doctrines essential to justification as well as some other doctrines of course. OK?
Peace and joy :)
Discussion