Chartology 101 - Pillar
Sermon • Submitted • Presented • 47:04
0 ratings
· 18 viewsFiles
Notes
Transcript
I want to start things off with a short story.
This story has been told many times over the last several decades, but it sets up the conversation so well, that even if you’ve heard it, I’d like to tell it just one more time.
There was once a man standing on a bridge and it looked like he was about to jump over the edge to his death in the icy waters below. Another man saw him and said, "Don't do it!"
The first man replied, "Nobody loves me."
The second said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes."
So the second man said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"
He said, "A Christian."
"Me, too!” said the second, “Protestant or Catholic?"
He said, "Protestant."
"Me, too! What denomination?"
He said, "Baptist."
"Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Baptist."
"Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."
"Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."
And the second man said, "Me, too!"
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."
Enraged, the second man replied, "Die, heretic!" And pushed him over.
This joke was once voted as one of the best religious joke of all time. What makes it funny?
There is absurdity of it, but also the painful partial truth that we can act like this sometimes as believers.
Should not all Christians earnestly contend for the faith in a like manner? Should we not stand for truth? Is everything worth that level of contention? If not, how do we know which things are which things aren’t?
Christian’s are really good at fighting about all kinds of things. In recent years the fights have been about classical scholasticism vs biblicism, woke vs anti-woke, Christian nationalism vs anti Christian nationalism, Zionism vs anti-zionism.
Some fights are small an localized within a local church. Some are very public and online so we end up with things like this: (IMAGE) Which is kind of what it felt like to read the comments on a facebook post about a debate about infant communion.
No one hates Christians quite as much as other Christians.
Are all those fights worth it? How do we know when to take a stand or when to stand down?
How do we know which of those fights arises to the level of importance that requires us to do as Jude says: Earnestly contend for the faith? Which hills are worth dying on? When do we know when and where to say as Martin Luther said over 500 years ago “Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, God help me. Amen”?
This is where the concept of theological triage, or doctrinal taxonomy comes into play.
The concept of theological triage. This can defined in this way:
Theological Triage/Doctrinal Taxonomy is the process of discerning and/or classifying the relative weight or importance of a doctrine or set of doctrines.
Medical Triage is used in emergency situations to assess the most important cases.
Taxonomy is the discipline of classifying things in a particular way.
Applied to doctrine and theology, it is the process of discerning and classifying the relative weight or importance of a doctrine or set of doctrines.
And brothers, what we must realize is that this process is a necessary process. Theological triage is necessary, as it is for at least two reasons.
1. It helps us avoid unnecessary division
1. It helps us avoid unnecessary division
First, it helps us avoid unnecessary division. Are there things we shouldn’t fight about and be divided over? Yes. There are always the classic jokes about things churches have split over, from the color of the carpet, to the length of the youth pastors beard, to whether or not deviled eggs belong in a church potluck context.
There will always be legitimate reasons to separate from people in the world. If we are always fighting trivial matters, we will lose the ability to have our voice heard on the important matters. We’ll be like the boy who cried wolf.
If We are always fighting about trivial matters, we will not have the energy for the fights that matter.
We must think carefully about this process to avoid unnecessary division.
But that is not the only danger we face. This process of theological triage is also necessary because it helps us avoid dangerous compromise.
2. It helps us avoid dangerous compromise
2. It helps us avoid dangerous compromise
How so?
First, it guards against apathy.
Years ago working on a jobsite I was listening to what I think was a John MacArthur sermon on the radio. A worker from another trade was there listening and he was commenting on the strong convictions of the preacher. And he made this comment: Man, I don’t know that I like this guy. He’s too much into doctrine. at my church, all we focus on is Jesus. We don’t want none of that doctrine stuff.
And I have to ask. Oh, you focus on Jesus...? Who is he? Is he God? Did he die for sinners?
That’s doctrine! You cannot escape doctrine, you either have good doctrine or bad doctrine, but we all have doctrine!
The process of theological triage helps us come to firm convictions about the things that really do matter so we can avoid dangerous apathy, this I-don’t-care attitude about doctrine.
Second it helps guard us against theological liberalism. Theological liberalism, among other things, is really a system rooted in naturalism. There is a denial of the supernatural, a denial that the Bible really is the Word of God. In liberalism, everything is up for grabs. You have some theology. That’s nice. Let’s see if we can move beyond that and see progress in our understanding of the self.
If we fail to properly triage our theology, we may run the risk of surrendering something that is foundational to the faith.
Finally, there is a dangerous compromise in the concepts of relativism. Everything is subjective. That’s just like, your opinion, man. That may be your truth, but my truth is...
Well. Are we dealing with fallible opinions of man or the time-tested Word of God? Theological triage helps us avoid a relativistic reduction of key truths.
3. It helps us be biblical, objective, and intentional rather than minimalistic, arbitrary, or instinctual.
3. It helps us be biblical, objective, and intentional rather than minimalistic, arbitrary, or instinctual.
I’m not the first or only person to talk about the concepts of theological triage.
But the way it is practiced varies from person to person.
You may be familiar with some the ways people talk about this.
Open hand issues vs closed hand issues.
Essential vs non-essential.
1st tier or first order vs 2nd.
What happens in many of these system and in many of these conversations, is that these labels get used, this language gets used, but there isn’t much work done on a biblical level to see if it actually fits or not.
And so the end result is just however good someone’s instincts are, that’s how good they are at triage.
For example. How you interact with someone who denies the deity of Christ is probably going to be different than someone who rejects a pre-trib rapture. Or else it should be! The person who denies the deity of Christ isn’t even a Christian! The person who rejects the pre-trib rapture but they affirm the gospel.....you’re going to be in a different place theologically, and possibly even in different churches, but you are still a brother in Christ.
How you interact with someone who denies the deity of Christ, or how you interact someone who denies the rapture is probably also going to be different with how you interact with someone who has a different taste in music than you. You might poke fun, put you’ll probably be able to attend the same church.
Most people can see that difference instinctually. Of course!
But is instinctual triage enough?
What if our instincts are wrong?
I’ve interacted with people who will try to diminish primary issues…they tend to be more theologically liberal.
I’ve interacted with people who will raise secondary things or conscience matters up to the primary level. These people tend to be the legalistic fundamentalists, adding requirements to the Christian life that Scripture doesn’t give us.
Where did they go wrong with triage? Why didn’t their instincts protect them from those errors?
How should we approach triage to avoid some of those errors?
We want to be Biblical, Objective, and Intentional
rather than minimalistic, arbitrary, and merely instinctual.
Be intentional, which will sharpen our instincts.
Be intentional, which will sharpen our instincts.
Instead of just letting our instincts drive the ship, what if we spent some time carefully weighing out the issues in an intentional way? Where would that lead us?
For one, it would actually sharpen your instincts. The more you’ve worked on these concepts and studied the Scripture, when you encounter a doctrine that you haven’t triaged before, it will be easier to instinctually make that assessment in the moment.
Second, we not only want to be intentional, but we want to be intentionally biblical and objective.
Be biblical instead of pragmatic or minimalistic
Be biblical instead of pragmatic or minimalistic
We can be tempted by pragmatism.
“In my experience, its easier to work with people who agree with XYZ, so those things must be primary”
“Some of these theological issues are so complex, so I’m just going to punt and say they are second or third level doctrine”
“There are so many opinions on this issue, and it’s a second tier issue, so I’m just not going to take a stance.”
It ends up being pragmatic for whatever you’re trying to accomplish.
The other thing that many people do is try to limit the primary column to just being gospel issues, or just a bare minimum, to be called a Christian. So we get books like “Mere Christianity”, or “Basic Christianity”, which can be helpful resources to a point, but I really have to challenge the approach. Should we be trying to find the bare minimum? Or should we be trying to understand what the Bible says?
Does the bible give us categories to use? Does the Bible help us fill out those categories?
I’m going to say yes, the Bible does those things, and that should be our guide for how we do theological triage. We want to be biblical. We want to be intentional.
So, how about we check out some bible on this.
What I would like to do is make a case for three categories, and show where they come from biblically and explain how to populate those categories.
First, you will notice that the chart is broken down in three columns “Primary” “Secondary” and “Doubtful.” Before we get into those to far, I want to note that I really do not like the language of essential verse non-essential. This communicates that some things that God revealed are optional.
I don’t believe God reveals information that we don’t need. I don’t believe that God reveals doctrine and then says its unimportant. Any truth that God has revealed is essential.
All truth is important.
But is it all of the same level of importance?
What does the Bible says?
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
Paul says these things are of first importance. Everything God has revealed is important, but these are of FIRST importance. The word used can sometimes carry the idea of a chronological priority, but usually the word is used to speak of rank. A higher priority.
Doctrines that are called primary are primary
So there is primary importance attached to the Gospel message.
This gives us a category of first importance, or primary. Are there other things that would rise to this level?
I would argue that any text that communicate a salvific weight to something is a primary issue.
Doctrines that are called primary are primary.
Doctrines that carry salvific weight are primary.
some examples of this.
And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.
Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we bore witness against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.
For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised.
And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to the gospel we have proclaimed to you, let him be accursed!
As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is proclaiming to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let him be accursed!
Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. The one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.
If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting,
Third, I would add to this category things that are so clear in Scripture that to deny them you have to deny the clarity of Scripture itself.
Doctrines that are called primary are primary.
Doctrines that carry salvific weight are primary.
Doctrines that are clear beyond reasonable doubt are primary.
Does the Bible say that we are made in the image of God? Yes
And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
This is noted again in a few places, so it’s not just once. Does the Bible call this primary directly? No. Does the Bible place salvific weight on this doctrine like the Resurrection or reality of the incarnation? No.
But is it clear? Is there any way to read that and say “the Bible does not teach that we are made in God’s image”?
No. The clarity of the doctrine makes it primary. Some doctrines are just laid out so clearly that the Bible says children and the simple-minded can grasp it. If you are to deny these things you are denying that the bible is really understandable at all.
Finally, the last criteria that lands something in the primary column
As you look at the chart that you have in your hands, you might notice that not all primary issues are doctrine issue, but some are practice.
That’s because the Bible places salvific weight on some of these things, and is so clear on some others.
Doctrines that are called primary are primary.
Doctrines that carry salvific weight are primary.
Doctrines that are clear beyond reasonable doubt are primary.
Practices that are meet the above criteria are primary.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
Or the necessity of practicing baptism or the Lord’s table. Scripture is clear!
For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was being betrayed took bread,
and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.”
These are primary issues! Doctrines or practices that are called primary, carry salvific weight, or are clear beyond reasonable doubt.
These are matters of truth that effect our fellowship. That passage from 2 John says not to welcome someone who denies the doctrine of Christ. 1 Cor 5 says not to eat with a so-called brother living in unrepentant sin! This does not mean we completely shun them, but rather do not treat them as if they are brothers in Christ when they are denying that.
These issues define Christianity. To deny these issues to abandon the faith.
These are the things worth dying for. These are the things worth taking our stand on.
You can look at the list, today, I’m just laying out categories.
What about secondary doctrine?
I readily admit that this is the most difficult category to discern. There isn’t a text that says “these things are the secondary doctrines”
But there are some interesting texts that lead us in that direction.
Consider these
And Barnabas wanted to take John, called Mark, along with them also.
But Paul kept insisting that they should not take him along who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work.
And there was such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus.
But Paul chose Silas and left, being committed by the brothers to the grace of the Lord.
There was a disagreement between Paul and Barnabas about Mark’s fitfulness for ministry. Though they didn’t excommunicate one another, they did go separate ways.
How about this
I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to live in harmony in the Lord.
These two ladies had a disagreement. We don’t know what the issue was there. It wasn’t heresy or Paul would have addressed that. It likely wasn’t a sin issue or else Paul would have said something as well.
Whatever it was, Paul said it wasn’t worth the fight that he advocates for elsewhere.
Check out these verses:
Remind them of these things, solemnly charging them in the presence of God not to dispute about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers.
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.
and then just a few verses later
But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels.
And the Lord’s slave must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,
with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may give them repentance leading to the full knowledge of the truth,
Some things are worth the fight. Other things aren’t. Some require correction, some don’t.
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, 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.
Jesus says some aspects of the law are weightier. They are all important! They should have attended to them all. But some things are weightier than others.
Logically, the existence of the primary category necessarily implies the existence of the secondary, or else we wouldn’t need to say “first importance” its just all important. So saying first implies that there is a second.
For the purposes of the chart, we’ve defined secondary in this way:
The reason why people will be either reformed or dispensational, Calvinistic or Arminianistic, Charismatic or Cessationist
its all going to do with our hermeneutic methodology and exegetical decisions along the way.
Church History reveals much of this. The church at large has enjoyed significant agreement on primary doctrine....secondary issues are all over the place.
Differences in these area sometimes result in denominational divides. Sometimes they result in separate churches within the same denomination. Sometimes people with different convictions here can attend the same church without any issues. Unity doesn’t necessarily have to be threatened, but there may be times separate ministries are wise, like when Paul and Barnabas departed from each other. It’s hard to have believers and babies baptism in the same church. Doesn’t usually work. But most church have a range of opinions in the spectrum of calvinism and arminianism, and they fellowship together just fine.
Allow me to say that just because something is secondary does not mean it is unimportant. Every single one of the things we list in the secondary column is important! I have strong opinions on most of it!
But they aren’t of first importance. If someone disagrees here, I’m still willing to call them brother, even if we end up in different churches.
Now, there is a third category that Scripture gives us when it comes to triage. And that is the issue of personal conscience. Doubtful comes from the NKJV translation of Rom 14:1.
Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things.
If we were to read the chapter of Rom 14 we would find that there are some things that Paul says you need to follow your Spirit-informed conscience on these issues. Whatever is not from faith is sin.
We find a similar idea over in 1 Cor 8 surrounding the discussion of food sacrificed to idols.
We have so much freedom and liberty in Christ, but we aren’t to abuse or flaunt that freedom.
These are issues where the Bible doesn’t tell us that a particular activity is necessarily right or wrong.
On the chart we’ve defined it this way.
This is the food we eat, the music we listen to, the movies we watch, how we spend our holidays, which holidays we will observe, how we will spend our money, etc. These aren’t matters of exegesis! The text just doesn’t tell us. We have to follow our Word-informed, Spirit-wrought consciences.
Sometimes I think people tend to think about issues of Christian liberty as issues that really don’t matter at all. I argue they do matter. You can have freedom in Christ to do something, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a foolish thing to do.
We want to pursue wisdom in matters of liberty and conscience.
We don’t want to cause others to stumble.
We want to honor the Lord.
And that will look different from person to person. The Bible gives us wisdom for these things, but doesn’t give us specific instruction on all of it. If someone has a different opinion than you, it’s okay. You can still be members in good standing at the same church. One brother may decide to get vaccinated. Another might decide not to. Someone is homeschooling their children. Another has chosen private or even public school.
We don’t say that it doesn’t matter. It does matter and these choices should be made using biblical principles and wisdom. But they should not be sources of conflict or disunity.
And that’s really the basics of biblical theoligcal triage. Taking the categories that the Scriptures give us.
Be willing to die for the primary issues. Don’t let go. Earnestly contend for the faith!
Take a stand on secondary issues, don’t be wishy washy there, but don’t shoot your brother if he differs on a secondary issue.
And seek wisdom and prudence on doubtful things. Be humble and charitable with those who choose different options in that third category.
Before I open the floor to any questions, I want to make note of a line that is critically important.
On your chart just below the title there is a line that says this:
Primary doctrines should not be violated by other doctrines. These objective truths inform and limit convictions and conscience matters
The Primary column limits the extent of the extremes of secondary and doubtful things. Saying alcohol is a doubtful thing does not give us freedom to get drunk. Drunkenness is primary. If someone says that they are a 5-point Calvinist and therefore they don’t need to evangelize, they are violating the primary column, and yet the issue of Calvinism itself is secondary, so long as the extremes are avoided.
As you study the Scriptures, you may come to different conclusions on what is primary and what is secondary than what I have on this chart. I want you to know that I think that’s okay. This chart is not infallible. This is merely two students of the word trying to be absolutely as biblical as we can as we discern the relative weight of each doctrine.
What I would say, is that if you do disagree with what belongs in each column, I would encourage you to make sure that you disagree for biblical reasons. I’m not particularly interested in someone coming to me as saying “I just feel like such and such a doctrine is primary, or is secondary”
That’s nice. what does the Bible say? That’s what’s important.
Any Questions?
