Rings of Theology: Foundational Theology to Salvation
We have been discussing Postmodern thought processes, truth, and whether or not there are non-essential truths when it comes to salvation. It seems best to speak of doctrine that is more central to salvation or more foundational to salvation rather than essential or non-essential. I have included the drawing above to help demonstrate what needs to take place in our mind. While all doctrine has ramifications and ties to salvation, certain doctrines are more core, central or foundational to salvation. Who God is, the Person and work of Christ, doctrines of the atonement and faith, and who man is are foundational and central. Therefore, even if I disagree with a brother on baptism or the Lord’s supper, modesty, or eschatology, but we agree on who God is, what Christ accomplished on the Cross, Sin, and faith, then we may have far more in common than other baptist or those within a given denomination. This is why I will often refer to men like John MacArthur (our views of the end times are different), RC Sproul, Sinclair Ferguson, Jerry Bridges (our views of church government and baptism are different), CJ Mahaney and John Piper (our views of the gifts of the Holy Spirit are different, not our view of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit though). These men all get the Apostles teaching on who God is, He is a sovereign creator; who man is, one created in the image of God, fallen in the first Adam, and dead and enslaved in sin unable to save himself or in any way merit God’s grace; what Christ accomplished on the Cross, that he died an atoning death for his people.
In theology it is essential that we keep what is central in the center of our theology. Many claim to hold to Christ and his death and resurrection. However, when He is distorted by adding to Christ then the entire gospel is distorted. Conversely, when He is distorted by minimizing or watering down the truth the entire gospel can be distorted. Paul speaks of men that elevate the doctrine of circumcision, or tried to add back in the doctrine of circumcision. When this happens our focus and hope can be easily shifted off of Christ. Those in Galatia wanted to add to Christ and his righteousness. ‘Sure, you are saved by Christ’ they would say, ‘but the real way of knowing you are a Christian is if you are circumcised. ‘ However, it is important to note that Paul does not write as if doctrines such as depravity (Ephesians 2), election and predestination, the sovereignty of God(Romans 9, Ephesians1), and a literal resurrection of Christ (2 Timothy 2:7-9) were non-central to believing in Christ.
The more we agree on who God is, and the person and work of Christ the more unity we will have in Christ. This does not mean the men and women have never been truly saved under incomplete or even wrong theology. This is the grace of God that he works in such a way. It also does not mean the men and women have not made false professions of faith under good theology. This is the depravity of men’s hearts and the deceptiveness of sin. However, Christ is most clearly displayed and glorified when He is proclaimed as He is revealed in the word.
Print This Post
May 21st, 2008 at 9:08 am
Good points. Almost indecipherable drawing
Can you re-publish it?
Check out William Cunningham’s Historical Theology, Chapter XXV, section XV (book 2, pg. 501-ff) for a most interesting and relevant discussion about “more important” truths that we share with evangelical Arminians; such as agree with the main reason for God giving the Scriptures, namely that we would be wise unto salvation.
He then describes the implications of what happens when varying degrees of error are maintained within a theological system. He also writes about the protestant church going through transition from a period of theological intolerance (Synod of Dort condemning Arminians as heretics, and the death of Servetus in Geneva) to an age of greater tolerance. (Remember our own US history: Baptists were persecuted in most of the colonies, but William Penn established principles of toleration in Pennsylvania.)
Tolerance for Christians of differing understanding, when coupled with Godly mercy, wisdom and love, patience, and knowledge to teach and learn, can be a beautiful expression of the “unity of the Spirit in the bonds of Christ.”
May 21st, 2008 at 9:41 am
Oops, I misquoted Eph 4:3
giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace
May 21st, 2008 at 10:36 am
I would agree with the idea of tolerance of Christians of another understanding to an extent. We must have agreement on what the Gospel is though, because if we differ on that then one of us is not a Christian. Belief in the gospel is what makes someone a Christian. If someone believes a different gospel, then one of us has a problem.
So tolerance is important with our brothers and sisters and them with us, but we must agree on the gospel.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Kevin,
Well said. Tolerance is a real balance act. Our definition of tolerance can take us back to the same discussion we have had about essential and non-essential. If tolerance means we act as if it is relative or does not matter, we weaken the gospel rather than promote a spirit of unity. Unity must be founded on truth, not tolerance. If tolerance means we exhibit patience and grace and love while still grasping tightly to the truth, then we are walking in step. When we differ with a brother about something in one of the center rings, it will hurt unity on a substantial level, but it should not mean we exhibit no grace or love in our conduct and speech.
One other note, the degree of doctrinal difference within a local body should be small. Tolerance should not mean we remove commitments to truth as local bodies, particularly on issues of who God is, who man is, how man is saved, what is faith, and how do we administer the sacraments. Again I will note, MacArther and Sproul can come together for the Gospel at conferences, but they do not sit in pews together on Sunday, nor do they practice their Christian life within the same denomination. Doesn’t this spirit of unity and tolerance have to have much tighter limits when it comes to the local church?
To what degree we exhibit tolerance is also an issue. With the Pharisees and Money Changers Christ seemed to have little or no tolerance. Paul seemed to have little or no tolerance for the bewitchers in Galatia nor the Christian living in Corinth.
May 21st, 2008 at 2:43 pm
That’s a good point about the local church. If we’re not largely in agreement with the guy down the pew every week, one of us will likely be thinking about it a lot and maybe even trying to persuade the other, which could then lead to dissension, splits, etc. So yes, I think the boundaries do have to be tighter in the local body.
May 22nd, 2008 at 7:39 am
Good point about dissension. Also, at some point one would be failing to place themselves under the guidance of a local shepherd if there is too much “tolerance” in a local church. It seems to tear apart the biblical idea of the church being and functioning as a body. It would also create a picking and choosing of what one wants to follow from the teaching. If not careful one can develop an attitude that if he says something I agree with I will amen, but if something convicts me I can just blow it off. And now we are back to truth being relative to each individual in the pew.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Thanks to Dave for helping me republish the Circles of Theology!