Truth is ancient; it's grey hairs may make it venerable;
it comes from Him who is the ancient of days. --Thomas Watson

 

31 May, 2008   comments: (0) Church History   Absence of Consensus Does Not Mean Stalemate I recently had an interesting conversation with another believer, who contended that it is admirable to admit the fallibility of our beliefs. He advocated being open to correction in our beliefs, because after all - we could be wrong. In a word, he said, this is being "humble". When asked whether he was certain about things like the Incarnation and Resurrection, he indicated that we SHOULD have certainty about those because they are "essential doctrines". He then went on to define "essential" by saying: "For me, an essential doctrine or teaching is one for which there is no biblical or theological argument to the contrary." He elaborated by saying of essential doctrines: "No legitimate exegesis and interpretation can be drawn from the Bible to argue to the contrary. Non-essentials, however, are different; non-essentials have biblical arguments which can be made". As you might imagine, there are some serious problems with this man-made formula for determining what doctrines are essential. I've heard others try to make a similar case based on "majority rule". In other words, if a doctrinal belief is not believed by most Christians, then it becomes invalidated somehow. The problem with that is, there are biblical doctrines that have gone out of style today, that used to be in the majority in past centuries. So for example, that criteria would cause us to proclaim election as "out" today, but it would have been "in" earlier, as it used to be a majority-belief in past centuries. It's hard to imagine truth's value being a moving target like that. Going back to the idea of essentials being defined as those doctrines that are not contested, here's one example from church history that throws a wrench in that theory. It relates to none other than "Christ the God/Man". In early church history, there was major disagreement over the definition of the nature(s) of Christ. It was vigorously debated, and what Christians believe today, happened to be in the minority at one point in time. John Piper gives this account of Athanasius, the early church Bishop who championed the cause of defining Christ in the way that we do today, even though that view was in the minority at the time: Within two years after taking office as Bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius was embroiled in controversy. Most of the Bishops who had signed the Creed of Nicea did not like calling people heretics who disagreed. They wanted to get rid of Athanasius and his passion for this cause. Athanasius was accused of levying illegal taxes, that he was too young when ordained, that he used magic, that he subsidized treasonable persons, and more. Constantine did not like his hardline either and called him to Rome in 331. The facts acquitted him, but his defense of the Nicene formulation of Christ's deity was increasingly in the minority. Today, we take for granted what Athanasius fought for, and there is little argument over the definition of "Christ the God/Man". What Athanasius believed, is what Christians believe today, even though the majority was against it during Athanasius' time. John Piper makes an interesting conclusion related to Athanasius' upstream battle for sound doctrine: A widespread and long-held doctrinal difference among Christians does not mean that the difference is insignificant or that we should not seek to persuade toward the truth and seek agreement. What if someone had said to Athanasius, "Athanasius, people have disagreed on this issue for 300 years and there has never been an official position taken in the church to establish one side as orthodox and the other as heresy? So who do you think you are? Half the bishops in the world disagree with you and they read the same Bible you do. So stop fighting this battle and let different views exist side-by-side". We may thank God that Athanasius did not think that way. He did not regard the amount of time that has elapsed or the number of Christians who disagreed to determine what doctrines are important and which we should strive to teach and spread and make normative in the church. And so today we should not conclude that the absence of consensus in the church means doctrinal stalemate. God may yet be pleased to give the blessing of unity on some crucial areas of doctrine that are not yet resolved in the Christian church. I think for example of the issue of Manhood and Womanhood, the issue of Justification by faith, and the issue of how the death of Christ saves sinners, and the issue of the sovereignty of God's grace in converting the soul. I don't think we should assume that because much time has gone by and many people disagree it must always be this way. Who knows but that, by God's amazing grace, wrong views on these things could become as marginal as the Arianism of the Jehovah's Witnesses is today? The account of Athanasius is one example that teaches us not to be mislead into thinking that "majority consensus" is what determines a doctrine's validity. Likewise, the presence of controversy related to a given doctrine, does not make it "non essential". Lastly, we should take a lesson from Athanasius relating to how much time has elapsed without consensus on a given doctrinal matter. As an example of this, a seeker-sensitive pastor recently labeled Christians who fight over Predestination versus Free Will as "just plain stupid", and said it's one of the dumbest things Christians fight over. His reason for saying this - is a common one now days; he said: "the Christian community has been fighting about this for hundreds of years". Like Athanasius, we shouldn't be dissuaded by critics like this, and we should be willing to stand for our biblical convictions, even in contrast to a majority, if need be. This is another lesson that history has for us. Further reading and resources: Read the rest of John Piper's account of Athanasius Or listen to it. Download the MP3 audio file Read Spurgeon on the sinfulness of believing wrong doctrine See John Flavel's Puritan test for discerning which doctrines are true Decide for yourself: - the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate Posted by: Jim B.   Link: http://www.oldtruth.com/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.171   Be the first to post a comment about this article        Home  |   About  |  Videos   |  Calvinism