In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas

The Crucial Distinction Between Essential and Peripheral Doctrines

Full article:

We've been talking about the distinction between (on the one hand) truth that is so essential to the gospel—so vitally important—that you must affirm it or be condemned; and (on the other hand) lesser truths, where there may be more room for misunderstanding or disagreement. How does one tell which category any given doctrine fits into?

Some have suggested (and I quite agree) that Scripture may be deliberately vague on these issues for good but hidden reasons, so that some of the questions we have raised are answered in the Bible with stark black-and-white clarity; while most of the answers we're looking for are sketched out in indistinct lines and with varying shades of gray.

On the other hand, some who have commented have wondered aloud whether any distinction between essential and peripheral truths is really even necessary.

It seems to me that even a few moments of cursory thought would quickly drive us to the conclusion that we cannot simply erase every distinction between primary and secondary doctrines...Scripture commands us to contend earnestly against error when the faith once delivered to the saints is at stake; and yet, when the unity of true saints is at stake, we are commanded to receive people who are weak in the faith without indulging in doubtful disputations.

We're expected to make sound judgments about which is which. Remember, Jesus sternly rebuked the Pharisees for failing to distinguish between vital and secondary legal principles—even though no distinction between "gnats" and "camels" was ever spelled out explicitly in the Old Testament law. They were held responsible to apply rational, sensible judgment to the biblical data—and there was plainly enough data so they should have understood that justice, mercy, and the love of God are bigger spiritual principles than counting out little seeds for a tithe (Luke 11:42).

Notice what Jesus said: "These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone" (Matthew 23:23). Recognizing a proper taxonomy of spiritual principles doesn't give us permission to abandon whatever principles are deemed secondary. I think that's a misunderstanding that causes some to shy away from speaking of "secondary" truths. But "secondary" doesn't mean "optional." It does, however, mean that all truths aren't of equal import. Not every point of truth is an occasion for all-out battle, especially between brethren who agree on the major points.

That's one of the huge practical realities of real-world ministry that sensible people who want to be faithful to the commands of Romans 14 simply must understand. We may not always agree on which issues are worth fighting for, but it's an evil mind that rejects the distinction completely and fights with equal vigor over every issue, gnats and camels alike.

Comments: The image above is from the ESV Study Bible (I improved upon it with some color and a little different labeling (but the same labels). I previously used this image in the post "Essential vs. Peripheral Doctrine". The Latin phrase In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas is ancient and well-know: English = "unity in necessary things; liberty in doubtful things; charity in all things". The wise man will head the admonition of "We're expected to make sound judgments about which is which". This would be a starting point.

Essential vs. Peripheral Doctrine

Comment: Chart source = ESV Study Bible - article = "Biblical Doctrine - An Overview". Section below is cited from this article.

The ability to discern the relative importance of theological beliefs is vital for effective Christian life and ministry. Both the purity and unity of the church are at stake in this matter. The relative importance of theological issues can fall within four categories:

1. Absolutes define the core beliefs of the Christian faith
2. Convictions, while not core beliefs, may have significant impact on the health and effectiveness of the church
3. Opinions are less-clear issues that generally are not worth dividing over
4. Questions are currently unsettled issues.

Where an issue falls within these categories should be determined by weighing the cumulative force of at least seven considerations:

1. Biblical clarity
2. Relevance to the character of God
3. Relevance to the essence of the gospel
4. Biblical frequency and significance (how often in Scripture it is taught, and what weight Scripture places upon it)
5. Effect on other doctrines
6. Consensus among Christians (past and present)
7. Effect on personal and church life.

These criteria for determining the importance of particular beliefs must be considered in light of their cumulative weight regarding the doctrine being considered. For instance, just the fact that a doctrine may go against the general consensus among believers (see item 6) does not necessarily mean it is wrong, although that might add some weight to the argument against it. All the categories should be considered collectively in determining how important an issue is to the Christian faith. The ability to rightly discern the difference between core doctrines and legitimately disputable matters will keep the church from either compromising important truth or needlessly dividing over peripheral issues.

Comments: Here's the flaws that I have often seen in Christian Fundamentalism:

• Everything is of equal importance
• The Pastor is the final authority (instead of the Scriptures!) (it's never stated like that ... but the Pastor is considered the "interpreter-in-chief")
• One cannot disagree with the Pastor (or else will be shunned and shunted!)
• There's a certain degree of "group think" where everyone in the church is expected to agree on all things
• Opinions are preached as absolutes

Mohler on Theological Triage

A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturityhttps://t.co/VXryBqalsD pic.twitter.com/QcgENDccun

— James Peet (@jrpeet) January 22, 2019

On adiaphorahttps://t.co/ihTbIkhlpI pic.twitter.com/kwGE0DDqav

— James Peet (@jrpeet) February 9, 2019

Essential vs. Peripheral Doctrine

Separation Points
Excerpt:

... the adherents to Dr. Ketchum’s form of “Fundamentalism” have been duped into embracing a largely phony spirituality that weighs a person down with personal preference convictions that masquerade as genuine holiness.

Additionally, individuals who practice his “Fundamentalism” have created an imaginary “concentration camp” of sorts that is governed by pastoral strong men who rule over souls with an iron fist insisting folks adopt and work out every one of those preference issues or face the severe displeasure of God almighty.

Ultimately, this view of sanctification leads the practitioner to paranoid despair, because it is believed that if a person doesn’t read the KJV 1611, or dress a certain way, or spend every moment of free-time attending church, or listens to any “unapproved” preachers, or reads any “banned” authors, etc, God will scowl down at him from heaven and the person risks a nasty smiting or a severe divine wedgie.

... Thankfully, there are others, however, who realize Dr. Ketchum’s view of “Fundamentalism” doesn’t truly reflect biblical “Fundamentalism” and so they strike out to where they can find true solace in the teaching and preaching of sound men. They have a lot of detox to go through in order to retrain their minds for thinking rightly, but God graciously helps them.

Comment: I find the Essential vs. Peripheral Doctrine (chart from the ESV study Bible) very helpful. Often times fundementalist pastors make the peripheral, essential.