Theological Musings

ell, I’m finally taking the time to post my thoughts on the recent discussions here. Again, I would like to thank each of you who contributed to this discussion. There have been some really good comments made, and some good ideas tossed around. I wish I could take the time to focus on all of them, but the discussion went in several different directions, and it’s hard to do justice to each of them. So, this post will be a bit of my rambling responses to some of the comments.

First of all, there do appear to be some key areas of agreement, and I want to shine the light on those for a bit. Perhaps the most obvious point of agreement in this discussion is that the line between “sound doctrine” and “unsound doctrine” has to be drawn somewhere. Someone cannot completely deny Jesus and yet still lay claim to the label of Christianity without all of us in this discussion muttering, “yeah, RIGHT!” So, I think it’s pretty obvious that all of us who have participated in this conversation have agreed that there are certain foundational truths that set us apart as Christians.

When I posed my questions on “orthodoxy”, I wasn’t sure which way the discussion would go. One of the suggestions that was made, however, was that the term “orthodoxy” be scrapped in the discussion for the term “sound doctrine”. This also seemed to be agreeable. I found this rather interesting. Not that it was agreed upon, but the fact that the response to a perceived negative connotation was to suggest using a different term. I think this can be very useful at times. Of course, we must be careful that we are not simply ignoring very real problems with the previous term and turning a blind eye to them.

The main reason I brought up the topic of discussion on orthodoxy was because that term had very quickly surfaced in response to my thoughts about confessions. The line of thinking seems to be that creeds and confessions are developed at certain key points in the history of Christianity in order to preserve (a sort of “freeze-frame”, if you will) elements of what is considered to be “sound doctrine”.

One particular problem with this line of thinking, however, is that it implies that “sound doctrine” needs to be “developed” over time. This is precisely the caution flag I was raising in the forerunner to this whole discussion, my thoughts about how “sola scriptura” comes to mean “Scripture plus whatever other documents we feel necessary”. Even if one buys into the idea (as has been suggested by some) that “sola scriptura” differs from the other four solas of the Reformation by meaning “only Scripture has a particular characteristic of being inspired” as opposed to “only Scripture actually is used in our theology”, we still have this problem of the amount of weight creeds and confessions are given in our theological discussions.

Another problem, perhaps, with the idea of “sound doctrine” being developed over time, and codified in creeds and confessions is that this seems to run quite counter to the teaching of Scripture itself. For example, Tony Sisk gave a great rundown of the use of the word “doctrine” in 1 Timothy. There’s some really good stuff there, but it indicates that Paul seemed to think that “sound doctrine” was an already understood and established thing.

To underscore this point, I would like to quote from one of Gordon Cloud’s comments:

[I]t is important to note that there is no “new truth”. What is true, has been true from the beginning. It is our responsibility to determine what that truth is.

So, from my perspective, Tony’s list of Paul’s comments on doctrine still begs the original questions. What are the boundaries of this set of beliefs that Paul was talking about when he mentioned “sound doctrine”? And how do we handle beliefs outside of those boundaries (whether considered orthodox or not)?

I believe someone mentioned in the discussion Paul’s harsh words in Galatians regarding anyone who preached “another gospel”. And this would seem, at first glance, to shed some light on how we react to “unsound doctrine”, right? Except the problem that we have there is that Paul is reacting to a very specific “other gospel”. We proceed carelessly if we assume that this is biblical instruction on how to deal with doctrine that differs from the Westminster Confession of Faith, for example.

Again, a point that I have tried to make here is that Paul preached a very particular Gospel. He summarizes it beautifully in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. Now, I want you to notice something very clearly stated here in this passage. Paul says that the statements in verses 3 and 4 (“…Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised again on the third day according to the Scriptures…”) are the gospel that he preached to the Corinthians. And he says that it is this Gospel which they received, and in which they stand, and by which they are saved!

So, is it necessary to add anything else to this in order to understand what Paul meant by “sound doctrine” in 1 Timothy? 1 Corinthians 1:3-4 is the best summary of the Gospel message itself that I can find in Scripture! And it is the only “line in the sand” that we need draw, if we want to remain true to what Paul preached. At least, that’s my opinion!

What did Paul preach about Jesus? I mentioned in an earlier post or comment that Paul never mentions the virgin birth. And I believe it was Gordon (although I can’t find the exact comment now, skimming the past posts and comments) who said, in effect, “Yeah, but the virgin birth has a lot to do with who Jesus was, and so is important in showing the fulfillment of prophecy in the birth of Jesus.” (I hope I’m representing that comment fairly.) But this seems, to me, to miss the point. What is the point of Paul’s teaching about Jesus? Jesus was the one whom God anointed (this is the meaning of the title “Christ”), and whom God selected to be the sacrifice for our sins. That much is fully present in Paul’s teaching. But those statements that I just made do not require the virgin birth, in and of themselves. (Walk carefully with me through this. It’s not as weird as you think it is!)

So, of what importance is the virgin birth? Well, let me try to explain my thoughts on this. As a part of understanding how Jesus’ sacrifice could be so perfect and so capable of being in our place, the virgin birth gives us a means to understand something about Jesus’ very unique origin. (This is why I made the tangential comment in a recent post about Jesus being a “unique” son of God, but not the “only” son of God.) And in understanding the uniqueness of how Jesus physically came into being, we can begin to see a better picture of how His sacrifice was, itself, uniquely qualified.

In other words, it is quite helpful and wonderful to know and understand (to the extent in which we can “understand” the virgin birth!), but the Gospel does not fall apart without it. The virgin birth is not a fully essential part of the Gospel itself. I may have made this point before, but notice that Paul does not include the statement that Jesus was “born according to the Scriptures” in his summary of the Gospel. In fact, the full weight of Paul’s emphasis in his teaching is on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus! This is quite worth noting in this discussion about sound doctrine.

So, what was Paul upset about in Galatians? He was upset that some were teaching that there was something other than the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ that was necessary for salvation. It’s not that they were denying the virgin birth. It’s not that they were disputing some definition of the Trinity. They were denying the very work of Christ on the cross for salvation from sins!

I would submit, then, for your pondering, that this is precisely what Paul meant when he told Timothy to teach “sound doctrine”. We must teach the truth of the Gospel, but we must not add to that, and give equal weight to other aspects of what we believe. If we do, even if what we teach is “correct”, I think we commit a very similar error as one who is teaching something that is unbiblical in itself.

I don’t fully expect this series of discussions to change too many people’s minds. But the one thing I do want is to help people think more critically of the assumptions that we bring to the table. With that in mind, I again thank you all for your gracious dialogue. The conversation can continue for anyone interested. I may move on to other topics in the next post, however.

Until next time,

steve

ne more quick blog format note, and then I promise I’ll get back to the substantial topics on the table. (No, I’m not avoiding the topics, I promise! I’m just sometimes very much a geek when it comes to stuff like this, and I’ve been having fun with WordPress plugins, etc. today when I should have been posting something more meaty!)

A new feature now on the blog is that from the main page (the one that you come to when you type in http://www.theologicalmusingsblog.com), you can read comments on any of the posts without actually visiting the post page. Here’s how it works:

At the bottom of any post that actually has comments, right next to the link that tells you how many comments are on that post, you’ll see a “Show Comments” link. When you click this, it will retrieve the comments for that post and expand the length of the page to show the comments right there inline. Once the comments are displayed, the “Show Comments” link will change to say “Hide Comments” which will then collapse the comments, hiding them again.

Depending on the number of comments, it may take a few seconds (you’ll see a little animated icon that shows that it’s working on pulling the comments in for you) to load them, so be patient. It’s probably no different, however, than the amount of time it takes to load the post page itself when you click over to read comments that way.

If you want to leave a comment, you’ll still have to visit the actual post page, but for just reading the comments (all of you readers out there who don’t actually leave comments! ), this should be a lot nicer for you.

Oh, and one little thing of interest when you actually do leave comments: With the preview feature, it gives the appearance that you have to enter the anti-spam word both before previewing and before posting. However, I have tested, and the only time the anti-spam word is checked is when you actually post the comment. I don’t know yet how to hide the anti-spam word from the initial form, but I can tell you that you can actually just skip it when clicking “Preview” and wait until you’re ready to click “Post” to actually fill in the name of whatever composer you got in your anti-spam word box! (And yes, Gordon, I have added Pachelbel to the list. Just for you, my brother!  Mozart was already on the list for whomever it was that requested that one.)

Until next time,

steve

orgive me for changing the look of this blog so soon into my new life here on this WordPress format. I hadn’t taken a huge amount of time to look through available themes (aka templates) before launching the new home for the blog, but now I’ve found some that I really like, and this is one of them! I’m exploring the option of letting you, the reader, switch between different templates so you can view this site in whichever template pleases you the most, but for now, I’m still holding the keys to the layout and design!

I anticipate writing some of my own thoughts on the recent discussion about orthodoxy (aka “sound doctrine”) very shortly. Let me say that the discussion has been so wonderful, I’m almost giddy with excitement over this! It’s great to have several different viewpoints represented, and I hope that we’re all growing and thinking through this process. Thank you to all of you who have already contributed.

A tangential discussion to all of this is the concept of “simple church”. As most of you know, this blog deals with different theological discussions, but the emphasis is usually on something related to simple church. (If you’re not really familiar with some of my thoughts on simple church, read part 1 and part 2 of a short series I did called “What Is Simple Church?” in the middle of last year.)

Today, I saw a video on Jonathan Grubbs’ blog. The video is produced by House2House and Karis Publishing. The video, which is ten minutes long, is a compilation of soundbites from various church planters and simple church advocates. I would strongly encourage each of you to take ten minutes to go watch the video. Once you’ve seen it, I would like to get your thoughts on some of the things that are said in that video.

Until next time,

steve

’m going to do something a bit odd for this blog. I’m going to start a thread for discussion without posting too many of my own thoughts about the topic at the start. In the recent discussions we have had, the word “orthodox” was used by Earl, and I set it aside. Turns out that Earl used it very intentionally! (Sorry, Earl!) And then Tony Sisk said that he thought the word needed to be discussed, and perceived a negativity in my previous comments about the word.

Fair enough, gentlemen. So, in addition to continuing to dialogue about the other posts, I would like to open up the comments here for some thoughts about orthodoxy. Specifically, I’m requesting the following information from any and all who would like to contribute to this:

• What is your understanding of the definition of “orthodoxy”?
• How narrow or broad is the label “orthodox”?
• Who/what determines orthodoxy?
• How should orthodoxy affect fellowship (assuming you believe that unorthodox people can still be Christians)?  If you don’t believe that a Christian can be “unorthodox”, then state that, too.
• How should orthodoxy be “enforced”, and by whom?
• What should be the result of someone being “unorthodox”?

Any other thoughts you want to address on this topic are fair game. I’m hoping that there will be enough input on this to give me something to respond to. But for now, the floor is all yours…

Until next time,

steve

ell, I didn’t quite realize what fun we would have with the last couple of posts. And I certainly didn’t realize that my “short list” would get such an interesting response! But I would like to try to address some of the major points that have been raised in a further attempt to make my case for simplicity.

Please understand that I have every intention of keeping the conversation as civil as it has been. One of my unwritten goals for this blog is still keeping this blog a “safe” place to discuss theological issues without mudslinging, namecalling, etc. And I owe a lot to you, my readers, for helping keep that tone in the comments section. I am blessed to have you here on my little blog. So, with that being said, let me now share what’s on my heart in this area.

The first issue that came up, raised by Earl, is the example of Mormons. Earl feels that my short list would be (at least verbally) “ok” with Mormons, and therefore, my list is insufficient. After all, if it lets the Mormons in, it must be bad, because we all know that Mormons are in a cult, and can’t possibly be saved. (Yes, that’s slightly tongue-in-cheek!) And so, we come to this question, raised by Earl: Do you consider Mormons, who follow their doctrine, to be orthodox Christians?

Now, this question actually represents a subtle switching of the topic by Earl, albeit I’m sure quite unintentionally. Earl began by saying that my list would include Mormons as Christians, but then asked if I consider Mormons to be orthodox Christians. That is actually a whole different subject that would be something of a rabbit trail right now, so I don’t want to get too distracted with it. I’ll make a note to come back to it at some point, though, and that is the topic of “orthodoxy”. Specifically, it would be interesting to discuss what that term means, where it comes from, who holds the gavel in determining what is (and is not) orthodox. But if you don’t mind, Earl, I’m going to scrap the word “orthodox” from your question and answer the more basic question of whether or not I would consider Mormons to be Christians.

Well, actually, you’re probably going to think that I’m copping out on the answer, rather than answering it directly, but it really does have a lot to do with the main point I was trying to make in the recent posts. That point is this: I am not trying to create a statement of faith (or confession) which is based on anything other than Scripture. Additionally, I am not coming at this from an angle of making sure that certain people are excluded.

To look at a statement of faith (even if it’s informal) and say, “But that would allow for [insert name of group you are convinced is headed straight to Hell] to claim they are Christians” is to come at it from the wrong angle. My response to this type of statement is, “Who says they aren’t?” It seems that we are starting with a presupposition that we know who’s in and who’s out. That’s a dangerous place to begin.

Listen, I don’t mean to be patronizing about this, but it’s completely up to God whether or not to let a member of the Mormons into Heaven. For that matter, it’s completely up to Him whether or not to let any of us in! And Scripture reveals to us that the way to the Father is through faith in Jesus Christ. So if someone is putting their faith in Jesus as the way to the Father, then there’s not much we can say about it.

The reality is, we are all wrong in some area of our beliefs. Now, I am no expert on Mormon doctrine, and frankly I don’t need to be for this conversation because this conversation doesn’t need to be about whether or not Mormons could subscribe to my short list and call themselves Christians. The point is how far are we going to go in adding to the list of what people need to believe in order to be welcomed as a Christian? And why is it ok for us to be wrong in some areas, but it’s not ok for someone else to be wrong?

I have heard similar comments made (in various discussions) about Roman Catholics, about Oneness Pentecostals, about charismatics in general, about Methodists, about Anglicans…you get the picture? Every group thinks they have the “inside scoop” on what is necessary, and they can’t handle the thought that others might be “in” as well.

I have to be honest here and say that, in some senses, Earl and Isabel have proven the point I was making that the lines we draw end up being more divisive than anything. And I continue to contend that those lines go beyond Scripture. For example, what did Paul respond when asked what one should do to be saved (Acts 16:30-31)? He said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, the only Son of God, conceived of a virgin by the Holy Spirit….” No. He said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.” And later, in writing to the church at Corinth, he said that the essence of what he preached was that Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures, was buried, and raised again on the third day according to the Scriptures. That’s a far cry from where the creeds and confessions of the last 2,000 years have taken us!

Isabel raised the point about thinking it necessary to include that Jesus was the “only Son of God”, and even expressed some disappointment that I hadn’t even included the phrase “Son of God” at all. Raborn has already stolen some of my thunder in responding to this, but I want to reiterate the point he made. If you read the New Testament, you will find that Jesus is not referred to as the “only Son of God”. We are told that we, too, are given the power (the right) to become “sons of God”. And as Raborn pointed out, there are other passages that refer to Jesus as the “first born”.

(As a side note, I think the NIV really botched John 3:16 when they translated huion ton monogene as “one and only Son”. While it is true that Luke uses the same Greek word in referring to a single offspring, using this translation for John’s usage of the word contradicts other Scriptures, as I am demonstrating here. It is better seen as a uniqueness of how Christ was “begotten” in a way different to how we become sons [i.e., through adoption].)

You see, folks, this is exactly the problem I’m trying to highlight here. In our enthusiasm for “orthodoxy” and making sure that all our t’s are crossed and our i’s are dotted, we have gone beyond the teaching of Scripture and made a doctrine “essential” that is not even accurately stated. Now, do I have all the answers for what it means that we become “sons of God”? No, I don’t claim to. But I do know that it means that I can’t honestly say that Jesus is the only “son of God” without ignoring some Scriptures entirely, and twisting others.

With regard to the virgin birth, if that is such an essential doctrine, why do we not see it being preached in the New Testament? Why did Paul never refer to it? Why is it never contained in summaries of the Gospel as recorded by Paul? Note that I’m not saying I don’t believe in the virgin birth! Please don’t misunderstand my point here. What I’m saying is that if it is so essential that we must include it in our confessions, then why was it not central in the New Testament record of sermons preached?

In further illustrating my point for me, Earl and Isabel mentioned that the problems they see with my “short list” are exactly why we have confessions. To use Earl’s words:

But this gives you a flavor of what can happen with short confessions. This is why various historical creeds were developed, such as the Nicene Creed and the Definition of Chalcedon were developed, to address these kind of issues.

And with that comment, we have come full circle to my point about sola scriptura. What I see in Earl’s comment here is that the creeds were developed in order to make sure that people knew what they were supposed to believe. Scripture, apparently, was not enough to use as a guide. Things had to be boiled down to propositions that (to continue beating this horse) went further than Scripture itself, and then these became (and still are considered to be) the measuring rod.

Let’s look at Chalcedon, for example, which concludes with the following words: as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us. This equates “the Creed of the holy Fathers” with the teaching of the prophets and of Jesus Himself. So here, we have a creed (or definition, if you want to use that term, instead) giving equal weight to another creed.

Or, let’s take a look at my favorite to pick on, the Athanasian Creed (attributed to Athanasius, but doubted by scholars as being from him). The language used in the Athanasian Creed drives many evangelical definitions of the Trinity. And this Creed makes it abundantly clear that one must embrace this definition in order to be saved. Allow me to quote portions here:

Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith.

Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally.

Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being….

Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits.

And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other;

but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons.

Whoever wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity….

This is the catholic faith.

One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully.

Does anyone else see what I see? Here are statements that are not clearly spelled out in Scripture, yet this statement says that one “cannot be saved” without subscribing to it! This is exactly what I’m talking about! We cannot add to Scripture in this way by creating statements and telling people they must embrace them in order to be saved. What arrogance! What foolishness!

And so, I once again open myself up for criticism here, but I feel that I cannot state this any more clearly. Beliefs such as the virgin birth, Jesus being the Son of God, etc. might be all well and good. But where do we draw the line? “Orthodoxy” for many centuries has forced many other doctrines on us as being “essential”, and I take my stand here against that. Not against the beliefs themselves, but the implication (or outright assertion) that one must subscribe to every one of them in order to be considered “in”.

Earl and Isabel, I appreciate your dialogue here, and I hope it continues. But I would strongly encourage both of you to think about the implications of what you are saying. First of all, the implication that we have to somehow make sure that certain people are excluded. And second, the implication that the creeds and confessions that have gone before are consistent with Scripture. Please, let’s start with what Scripture actually says, and work from there! But let’s not go beyond that, or add to it, or force something back onto it that’s not there, and then make that a divisive issue.

Until next time,

steve