Majoring in the Minors
Have you ever met a Christian somewhere and began chatting with them? Did you have a feeling of joy as you realize that this is another person that has been captivated by the grace of God in Christ? They say there is a special bond between a pair of brothers or sisters, and in moments like the one I just described we get a far clearer understanding of why Christians have used brother and sister language. But have you ever been in one of these situations and then the person says something that causes you to instantly hold your breath? Maybe you even get a lump in your throat and that feeling of camaraderie is instantly gone?
I ask this question because if you have been a Christian for any time at all I imagine that you have had many such instances, and some of the feelings and reactions are incredibly justified. For instance I once had a conversation where the person knew lots of biblical truth but when pressed, their understanding of Christianity was boiled down to the statement "faith experience." When pressed further the problem was clear, they did not hold that the hearing and believing the gospel was necessary. The New Testament authors are more than clear on this, if anyone twists, adds to, or takes away from the gospel then they are not believing in the true gospel. Paul goes so far as to declare a curse (anathema - damned for all time) on anyone that preaches a different gospel because there is only one true gospel.
But what about those times when you have been having a great Christian bonding moment and the person says something like, "Isn't the sovereignty of God in unconditional election just incredible!?!" Or perhaps while on the topic of great recent theology books they say, "I just finished reading "A Case for Amillennialism" and it has become my favorite book on the end times." I would be willing to bet that you have at least some of the same reactions. I would be willing to bet that some of you reading this post may even be having a lump in your throat because I just wrote those words.
The question is why? Why are you having that response? Should these two questions cause the same reaction as the previous example I listed? I answer this question with a resounding, 'NO!' These situations are completely different, and they should be treated as such. Here's why:
In the first example I gave we were dealing with someone that refused to accept and believe the gospel - an essential and salvational issue Rom 1:16, Rom 10:17 etc. The gospel is so clearly attested to, and changing it is so clearly a sin in the New Testament that we must have that reaction. If someone believes in a partial gospel, then to be frank, they are unbelieving because the gospel must not ever be altered or changed.
One the other hand, the issues of divine election and what form of eschatology (what the end times will look like) that someone holds to are NOT issues that we should be dividing over. I have heard many say that if someone does not hold to a pretribulational, premillennial rapture of the church, then they are on the road to liberalism. Not to be rude, but that kind of statement is as divisive as it is ignorant. This is a prime example of majoring in the minors - taking non-essential, secondary issues and elevating them to the level of gospel importance.
Consider the language of Proverbs 6:16-19 (ESV) on divisiveness:
There are six things that the LORD hates,
seven that are an abomination to him:
haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked plans,
feet that make haste to run to evil,
a false witness who breathes out lies,
and one who sows discord among brothers.
Notice that the seventh thing that is an abomination to the Lord is "one who sows discord among brothers." This warning is as clear as could be, God desires that we would be a united people. United on the essentials of the faith, particularly on the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The problem is not that we have those reactions when we hear others say certain things, the problem is that we have been taught to have those reactions for too many issues. Sadly, many beloved Bible teachers have peddled many non-essential, secondary issues so much that they have become primary issues. That doesn't mean that we cannot hold to our positions passionately, but it means that we need to remove the stigma that comes when others disagree with us.
Let me say as clearly as can be - the position someone holds to regarding the millennium should NEVER be an issue that causes us to have a question mark about another brother or sister in Christ. The only essential aspect of eschatology is that Christ is returning to judge the living and the dead. The many theories that are out there on the events leading up to His return are in no way a test of orthodoxy and should never be treated as such, otherwise we run the risk of sowing discord among brothers.
Pastors absolutely can and should share why they hold to the view of the millennium that they do, but if they belittle or mock the other views (especially without truly understanding them) they create concerns in their congregations - the knots in peoples stomachs. I personally believe that not fairly explaining the other views is a product of ignorance and laziness. Ignorance of what the other views actually say, and laziness because they don't care to study what the other view actually teaches. Pastors cross the line when they say things like, "Amillennial theology is where Nazi antisemitism came from." The truth is that antisemitism and all other forms of racism are demonic, they come from Satan who tries to convince sinful people that they are better than a different group of sinful people. To say that a certain view on a non-essential issue (the millennium) is responsible for racism of any kind is incredibly divisive and sinful.
This is the kind of divisive nonsense that should have no place in the church today. Not only do these pastors completely misrepresent the many, many Christian brothers and sisters around the world that hold to amillennial theology, they cause those in the congregation that didn't know any better to fear them and that is exactly what Proverbs 6 is warning against.
Similarly, a persons views on the sovereignty of God in election and predestination should never be causes for division in the church. I will wholeheartedly agree that this is a sticky issue and one that has caused much division in the church throughout the centuries, but our disagreements should not - must not - become divisive. I have dear friends and relatives that disagree with me on this issue, and that's ok. By the grace of God we must continue to disagree as brothers and sisters in Christ. Over the holidays I was so blessed by being able to talk, and even laugh about, differences on this issue with a family member.
For an example of how people can talk about these differences, I highly recommend the audio by Michael Horton and Roger Olson called "For/Against Calvanism" - http://youtu.be/1D2SWKbZSIU - where they have a conversation about this topic without arguing. These are two brothers in Christ that have a discussion on these issues, intending to better understand each others positions. (BTW - the discussion begins at minute 36 after intro's and opening statements from both men)
Whenever this topic comes up the first question asked is, "How do we know where the dividing line between major and minor are?" There are, of course, different opinions on how to answer this question, but in the past year I have come to believe that the best way to simplify it is by tying it back to the gospel.
The gospel rightly explained teaches us that man was fallen - "dead in our sins and trespasses" - and completely unable to lift a finger to move towards God. And though God would have been perfectly just to leave us in our sins and allow us to be destroyed by them, Jesus Christ became a man, lived the perfect life that we should have lived, and then died the death that we sinners deserved to die. He then rose from the grave and ascended into heaven, promising to return and consummate His kingdom.
As I stated in my last post, Paul called the gospel the "Things of first importance" (you can read that post here at http://trevorbinkley.blogspot.com/2012/12/things-of-first-importance-why-i-make.html), and so I believe that all the essential doctrines are tied directly the gospel. For example, if someone denies that Jesus is God, then His sacrifice on the cross would not have been sufficient to pay for our sins. 1 John deals with those that are liars and say that Jesus did not come in the flesh (proto-gnosticism). Paul in many of his letters addresses those that would try to add anything to Christ's perfect sacrifice as preaching a different gospel which is no gospel at all. If God is not Father, Son and Spirit then the Father could not have sent Jesus the Son to die for our sins and the Spirit could not apply salvation to those who believe. If man was not fallen and sinful then there is no need for a Savior God to come and die for us.
So you see, the essential doctrines are those that, when denied, cause the gospel to be changed. And the gospel must never be changed. The gospel is "the power of God unto salvation" and "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ" (the gospel!), so all the essential doctrines are tied up in the accuracy and efficacy of the gospel.
Both Arminians and Calvinists believe that man is completely unable to save himself, though they disagree on the details of how that salvation is worked out, they both agree that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone. Both pretribulationalists and amillennialists agree that Jesus is coming back and those that have been washed in the blood of the Lamb will spend eternity with Him, but those who have rejected Christ will be judged. The main dividing point that most pretribulationalists would point to is that amillennialists do not necessarily see a future for Israel in the land. However, Israel's future in the land, or lack thereof, does not in any way alter the gospel. Christ came from the nation of Israel, but with His death He "broke down in his flesh the dividing wall" so, "there is neither Jew nor Greek." While the issue of Israel is still one of great importance, it is not any more essential than is what view of creation one holds to. (For my Calvary friends - even Chuck Smith doesn't hold to a literal six day view of creation)
In closing, we certainly can and should have opinions on areas of non-essential theology, but we should never allow those positions to cause us to look at or judge another brother or sister in Christ as leaving the faith. If we hold to the one and only true gospel, then we are all one in Christ - lets act like it.
I ask this question because if you have been a Christian for any time at all I imagine that you have had many such instances, and some of the feelings and reactions are incredibly justified. For instance I once had a conversation where the person knew lots of biblical truth but when pressed, their understanding of Christianity was boiled down to the statement "faith experience." When pressed further the problem was clear, they did not hold that the hearing and believing the gospel was necessary. The New Testament authors are more than clear on this, if anyone twists, adds to, or takes away from the gospel then they are not believing in the true gospel. Paul goes so far as to declare a curse (anathema - damned for all time) on anyone that preaches a different gospel because there is only one true gospel.
But what about those times when you have been having a great Christian bonding moment and the person says something like, "Isn't the sovereignty of God in unconditional election just incredible!?!" Or perhaps while on the topic of great recent theology books they say, "I just finished reading "A Case for Amillennialism" and it has become my favorite book on the end times." I would be willing to bet that you have at least some of the same reactions. I would be willing to bet that some of you reading this post may even be having a lump in your throat because I just wrote those words.
The question is why? Why are you having that response? Should these two questions cause the same reaction as the previous example I listed? I answer this question with a resounding, 'NO!' These situations are completely different, and they should be treated as such. Here's why:
In the first example I gave we were dealing with someone that refused to accept and believe the gospel - an essential and salvational issue Rom 1:16, Rom 10:17 etc. The gospel is so clearly attested to, and changing it is so clearly a sin in the New Testament that we must have that reaction. If someone believes in a partial gospel, then to be frank, they are unbelieving because the gospel must not ever be altered or changed.
One the other hand, the issues of divine election and what form of eschatology (what the end times will look like) that someone holds to are NOT issues that we should be dividing over. I have heard many say that if someone does not hold to a pretribulational, premillennial rapture of the church, then they are on the road to liberalism. Not to be rude, but that kind of statement is as divisive as it is ignorant. This is a prime example of majoring in the minors - taking non-essential, secondary issues and elevating them to the level of gospel importance.
Consider the language of Proverbs 6:16-19 (ESV) on divisiveness:
There are six things that the LORD hates,
seven that are an abomination to him:
haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked plans,
feet that make haste to run to evil,
a false witness who breathes out lies,
and one who sows discord among brothers.
Notice that the seventh thing that is an abomination to the Lord is "one who sows discord among brothers." This warning is as clear as could be, God desires that we would be a united people. United on the essentials of the faith, particularly on the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The problem is not that we have those reactions when we hear others say certain things, the problem is that we have been taught to have those reactions for too many issues. Sadly, many beloved Bible teachers have peddled many non-essential, secondary issues so much that they have become primary issues. That doesn't mean that we cannot hold to our positions passionately, but it means that we need to remove the stigma that comes when others disagree with us.
Let me say as clearly as can be - the position someone holds to regarding the millennium should NEVER be an issue that causes us to have a question mark about another brother or sister in Christ. The only essential aspect of eschatology is that Christ is returning to judge the living and the dead. The many theories that are out there on the events leading up to His return are in no way a test of orthodoxy and should never be treated as such, otherwise we run the risk of sowing discord among brothers.
Pastors absolutely can and should share why they hold to the view of the millennium that they do, but if they belittle or mock the other views (especially without truly understanding them) they create concerns in their congregations - the knots in peoples stomachs. I personally believe that not fairly explaining the other views is a product of ignorance and laziness. Ignorance of what the other views actually say, and laziness because they don't care to study what the other view actually teaches. Pastors cross the line when they say things like, "Amillennial theology is where Nazi antisemitism came from." The truth is that antisemitism and all other forms of racism are demonic, they come from Satan who tries to convince sinful people that they are better than a different group of sinful people. To say that a certain view on a non-essential issue (the millennium) is responsible for racism of any kind is incredibly divisive and sinful.
This is the kind of divisive nonsense that should have no place in the church today. Not only do these pastors completely misrepresent the many, many Christian brothers and sisters around the world that hold to amillennial theology, they cause those in the congregation that didn't know any better to fear them and that is exactly what Proverbs 6 is warning against.
Similarly, a persons views on the sovereignty of God in election and predestination should never be causes for division in the church. I will wholeheartedly agree that this is a sticky issue and one that has caused much division in the church throughout the centuries, but our disagreements should not - must not - become divisive. I have dear friends and relatives that disagree with me on this issue, and that's ok. By the grace of God we must continue to disagree as brothers and sisters in Christ. Over the holidays I was so blessed by being able to talk, and even laugh about, differences on this issue with a family member.
For an example of how people can talk about these differences, I highly recommend the audio by Michael Horton and Roger Olson called "For/Against Calvanism" - http://youtu.be/1D2SWKbZSIU - where they have a conversation about this topic without arguing. These are two brothers in Christ that have a discussion on these issues, intending to better understand each others positions. (BTW - the discussion begins at minute 36 after intro's and opening statements from both men)
Whenever this topic comes up the first question asked is, "How do we know where the dividing line between major and minor are?" There are, of course, different opinions on how to answer this question, but in the past year I have come to believe that the best way to simplify it is by tying it back to the gospel.
The gospel rightly explained teaches us that man was fallen - "dead in our sins and trespasses" - and completely unable to lift a finger to move towards God. And though God would have been perfectly just to leave us in our sins and allow us to be destroyed by them, Jesus Christ became a man, lived the perfect life that we should have lived, and then died the death that we sinners deserved to die. He then rose from the grave and ascended into heaven, promising to return and consummate His kingdom.
As I stated in my last post, Paul called the gospel the "Things of first importance" (you can read that post here at http://trevorbinkley.blogspot.com/2012/12/things-of-first-importance-why-i-make.html), and so I believe that all the essential doctrines are tied directly the gospel. For example, if someone denies that Jesus is God, then His sacrifice on the cross would not have been sufficient to pay for our sins. 1 John deals with those that are liars and say that Jesus did not come in the flesh (proto-gnosticism). Paul in many of his letters addresses those that would try to add anything to Christ's perfect sacrifice as preaching a different gospel which is no gospel at all. If God is not Father, Son and Spirit then the Father could not have sent Jesus the Son to die for our sins and the Spirit could not apply salvation to those who believe. If man was not fallen and sinful then there is no need for a Savior God to come and die for us.
So you see, the essential doctrines are those that, when denied, cause the gospel to be changed. And the gospel must never be changed. The gospel is "the power of God unto salvation" and "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ" (the gospel!), so all the essential doctrines are tied up in the accuracy and efficacy of the gospel.
Both Arminians and Calvinists believe that man is completely unable to save himself, though they disagree on the details of how that salvation is worked out, they both agree that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone. Both pretribulationalists and amillennialists agree that Jesus is coming back and those that have been washed in the blood of the Lamb will spend eternity with Him, but those who have rejected Christ will be judged. The main dividing point that most pretribulationalists would point to is that amillennialists do not necessarily see a future for Israel in the land. However, Israel's future in the land, or lack thereof, does not in any way alter the gospel. Christ came from the nation of Israel, but with His death He "broke down in his flesh the dividing wall" so, "there is neither Jew nor Greek." While the issue of Israel is still one of great importance, it is not any more essential than is what view of creation one holds to. (For my Calvary friends - even Chuck Smith doesn't hold to a literal six day view of creation)
In closing, we certainly can and should have opinions on areas of non-essential theology, but we should never allow those positions to cause us to look at or judge another brother or sister in Christ as leaving the faith. If we hold to the one and only true gospel, then we are all one in Christ - lets act like it.
Comments
Post a Comment