It is sad how much Christians fight over doctrines which are not essential. We typically call these secondary teachings. From which mode of baptism is biblical to head coverings to predestination, there are all kinds of ways Christians choose to fight amongst themselves.
I came up with a question for those who believe the Bible speaks clearly on one of these non essential doctrines: How do you explain that equally learned and devoted Christians disagree on this issue? Some dodge the force of the question and simply say, “But the Bible clearly teaches God created in six, twenty-four hour days.” At this point I will try to get the person to appreciate that they are saying, even if not explicitly, that the other side is either not as scholarly, not as devoted to God, or perhaps both. If the person does not seem to appreciate these things, my experience has taught me to move on to another subject!
Did you know I wanted to be an interior decorator? Only a few remain interested in fighting with me.
This advice you gave me years ago has contributed greatly to my “look for opportunities to shut-up” initiative.
Thanks Dave.
Hey Danny,
Yeah, there are many more of those opportunities than most of us care to admit!
While reading about the Evangelical (or Great) Awakening last week, I was struck by similar thoughts. Whitefield, the Wesleys, and many others were working together very well together at the outset, until division struck: Calvinism v Arminianism.
Do you think that someone’s dogmatic belief on secondary teachings have any influence his or her understanding of Christianity’s essential doctrine?
Hi BC,
It sure seems to be the case. For example, take the issue of predestination v. “free-will.” How we fall out on this issue is going to influence our understanding of Christ’s death on the cross. The different ways people interpret John’s use of “world” will have a bearing on how they understand the work of Christ on the cross.
So, if having said that, would the contrary be true as well? That is, not having a strong belief in a particular secondary teaching would effect an individual’s understanding on an essential doctrine. Or maby better said like this, the lack of a firm belief in non-essential doctrine may lead to a unsteady belief in essential doctrine.
I definitely think that primary and secondary doctrines must remain distinct as much as is possible, but you are correct to underscore that they do influence one another when it comes down to the nitty gritty of life.
An interior decorator? Hum!