There are some issues and doctrines that we can disagree on all day long, and still worship and serve God together. There are some third tier doctrines, or tertiary doctrines, that we shouldn't let divide Christians. We should not let some things divide us from others who know the Lord and love the Lord. What are these things, these tertiary doctrines, that sometimes causes Churches to split, or causes Christians to get fightin' mad at each other, or causes Christians to not want to serve the Lord with each other? What are the truly, tertiary doctrines that shouldn't cause us to split? to not worship and serve God together?
Well, these things have a wide range. These are the things that are not clearly spelled out in Scripture. These are the truly gray areas of the Bible. These are the things that we really shouldn't divide over. These would be things like one Christian not going to restaurants that serve liquor, believing it to be bad,while on the other hand, there are those Christians who will go to restaurants that sell liquor. And, they don't feel bad about it at all. Listen, I know some that would let something like this come between them. And, the one person thinks that they are more spiritual than the other one, because they don't eat there, or because they do eat at those places, and don't see anything bad about it. When really, we should respect each others convictions on such matters. Let the Christian who doesn't want to eat at such places not eat there, and let those who see no problem with eating at such places eat there; and let them respect each others opinion, or their personal conviction about such minor things. It shouldn't divide mature, spiritual Christians. And, something like this should not divide us in the SBC.
Or, it could be that some people like traditional worship with hymns only, and with organ and piano music only. While on the other side, you have people who only want guitars and drums and praise songs. And, the traditional people think that the contemporary people are strange and out there and going wild, while the contemporary crowd look down on the traditional as being dinosaurs who aren't very with it. But, this should not divide us in the SBC. We should allow for traditional and contemporary Churches. We should allow for Churches that play drums and guitars, and also for those who have a full orchestra, all the way to those who just sing hymns with piano music. The SBC umbrella should be big enough for all these types of worship.
Some of the tertiary doctrines that become a huge deal to some people are Pastors wearing a suit and tie, or not. I mean, when it gets right down to it, who cares if a Pastor wears a suit and tie, or if he wears more casual clothes? And yet, some people make a huge deal out of this issue. When in reality, we ought to allow for a Pastor to wear what he wants...in reason of course. I mean, if a Pastor wants to run around in a t-shirt and shorts everyday, and his Church is not on a beach somewhere, then he ought to be told to dress appropriately. But, if he's dressed in a nice shirt and pants, and he's wearing some nice, casual shoes, then that should be fine. Also, if a Pastor wants to wear a suit and tie everyday(for some strange reason that I cant understand), then fine. Let him wear a suit and tie if that makes him feel good. But, this would be a tertiary doctrine that should not get Christians fired up and upset, and we should never put into the BFM that a Pastor should wear certain clothes; because something like this is truly a tertiary doctrine.
Also, minor points of theology like whether someone is pre-trib., or mid-trib., or post-trib., should not be something to divide over. Where someone stands on minor points of doctrine that are not clearly spelled out in the Bible shouldn't divide us. And, we should never put something like this in the BFM. If you're mid-trib, well you have the right to be wrong. :) But, I can see, from the Bible, where you're coming from. I don't agree with you, but that's alright. I still respect your beliefs, and I will gladly serve the Lord with you.
Also, I have heard some Pastors make a big deal out of smoking cigs, or out of being overweight, or out of exercising, or out of other such things that the Bible doesnt really deal with. And, some Pastors, and some Christians almost get legalistic about exercise and being "healthy." Some Christians almost get legalistic about the environment, as if it's a sin to not be cleaning up "Mother Earth." Well, if you motto is, "I don't smoke, dip, nor chew; nor do I kiss girls that do." Well, fine. Believe that way. You'll be better off for it in my opinion. But, don't condemn the fella that likes a jaw full of Redman every now and then. Because, the Bible doesn't teach that it's a sin to chew tobacco. In the same line of thought, you shouldn't look down on those that are overweight. Nowhere in the Bible is there a weight chart that tells us how big is too big. Nowhere. So, for those who think that they're more spiritual because they work out in gyms and are thin, and condemn the Christian who don't work out, and who are large people, is wrong. That's legalistic. And, this is truly a tertiary doctrine where disagreement ought to be tolerated and non-divisive. Also, if a Christian recycles and plants trees and wants to ride a bike to work, then fine. But, they shouldn't look down on those Christians who drive their four wheel drive truck to work, and who like to shoot Bambi and catch Nemo on their days off. A Christian who thinks that it's a sin to throw your trash away, instead of recycling has become legalistic; because the Bible does not say that we have to recycle.
So, there are many, many issues out there that are truly tertiary doctrines. There are many gray areas of the Bible that should not divide Christians. There are many third tier doctrines that should not cause Churches to split, nor to make us not want to serve the Lord with each other. And, a wise, mature Christian understands these things. Let us all try our best, with the help of God, to know what things are essential, and what things are secondary(important, yet not essential), and what things are truly tertiary doctrines and practices; but, in all things, love. As Dr. Adrian Rogers used to say, and I'm paraphrasing, "There are some things that we shouldn't be dogmatic about, but there are other things that we need to be bulldogmatic about." But, in all things.....love.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
David / Volfan007,
A good post and some things are on the legalistic side of what God’s Word Says by adding to or taking away it.
Thank God for Finally passing the Resolution on Repentance and Church Discipline, Now known as Resolution # 6.
This is from one of my Books and what Heresies is about when Churches go AMOK!!!
Kind of sounds like our Baptist Churches and their 16 million Members.
Heresies can be discovered through asking probing questions. We can guard against man-made religions by asking these questions about any religious group: (1) Does it stress man-made rules and taboos rather than God’s grace? (2) Does it foster a critical spirit toward others, or does it exercise discipline discreetly and lovingly? (3) Does it stress formulas, secret knowledge, or special visions more than the Word of God? (4) Does it elevate self-righteousness, honoring those who keep the rules, rather than elevating Christ? (5) Does it neglect Christ’s universal church, claiming to be an elite group? (6) Does it teach humiliation of the body as a means to spiritual growth rather than focusing on the growth of the whole person? (7) Does it disregard the family rather than holding it in high regard as the Bible does?
David Rogers also has some good things to say on Unity and The Body of Christ on His Blog, Here:
http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/
Wayne Smith
I absolutely agree with your post David
In addition to your list, I would add moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages (not getting drunk) calvanism/free will, speaking in tongues, further dividing believers baptism, literal seven (24 hour)day creation/theistic evolution, female deacons/youth ministers/education ministers
Our list could go on for quite a while...But as a Baptist I would not divide the SBC over any of the above - nor would I not appoint a missionary or proff at an SBC seminary who believed differently than I do on any of your list or what I have listed
Jim Champion
Very good Hillbilly,
You are moderating in your views. Now if we can just convince you to not be so belligerent there may hope for you.
I personally prefer pastors to wear a robe/stole rather than a suit. I went to a Vineyard Church in California and the pastor wore a stole and shorts he at least got part of it right. And I prefer a liturgical type service but I ain't agin raising my hands and a little shouting either. And for the wine used in communion...it should be real wine not grape juice. I don't even mind a woman pastor as long as the person who gets to examine her theology is ME. Don't put words in my mouth here.....I'm not a paedobaptist but I have no problem with sprinkling or pouring even though it is preferable to immerse. I can see in some countries where water is at a premium that it might be necessary conserve water.
"Also, I have heard some Pastors make a big deal out of smoking cigs, or out of being overweight, or out of exercising, or out of other such things that the Bible doesnt really deal with."
"But, don't condemn the fella that likes a jaw full of Redman every now and then. Because, the Bible doesn't teach that it's a sin to chew tobacco."
I find these statements interesting and inconsistent when put in the context of the recent SBC discussions on alcohol.
In 1933, the SBC passed a resoution on the dangers of tobacco. 4 years later in 1937, the SBC passed another resolution stating the use of tobacco among Christian people - especially preachers and church leaders - "is not only detrimental to the health of those who participate, but is hurtful to the cause of Christ in that it weakens the message and lowers the influence of those who are charged with the preservation and spread of the Gospel."
In 1964, the SBC passed another resolution asking LBJ to emphasize the dangers of both tobacco and alcohol to the public at large. In 1969, the SBC again came out against tobacco in a resolution against tobacco and liquor advertisements.
And the big tobacco resolution: In 1984 your SBC passed a resolution compares tobacco addiction to "other drug addictions." It calls tobacco "the most important health risk in the country." And here's the punch:
"Therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Kansas City, Missouri, June 12-14, 1984, encourage churches to give people the facts regarding the physical harm involved in cigarette smoking, beginning with children of an early age; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we encourage schools to make information regarding the harm of cigarette smoking part of the curriculum for students of all ages; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we encourage parents by personal example to TEACH ABSTINENCE from cigarette smoking; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That our churches, associations, state conventions, and the Southern Baptist Convention take leadership in encouraging our people, pastors, and SBC leaders to refrain from using tobacco in any form, including cigarettes; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we encourage Southern Baptists presently engaged in the growing of tobacco, which has no use except for cigarettes and related products, to cease such agriculture and, where feasible, to switch to another cash crop in order to make such products less accessible; and
Be it finally RESOLVED, That we encourage the Congress and Senate to terminate all agricultural funding and subsidies to those who plant, grow, or sell any tobacco products."
ABSTINENCE. ABSTINENCE.
Now to the resolutions on Alcohol:
1981: Be it further RESOLVED, That we educate the children in our churches to ABSTAIN from use of alcoholic beverages
1982: Be it further RESOLVED, That we educate the children in our churches to ABSTAIN from use of alcoholic beverages
1983: Therefore, be it RESOLVED, That we, the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention assembled in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, June 14-16, 1983, declare again our steadfast opposition to the use of alcoholic drinks as a beverage; and
1984: Be it further RESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptist families and churches to work tirelessly and uncompromisingly to educate children, young people, and adults concerning the nature and consequences of alcohol use, pointing them toward a responsible Christian life style of ABSTINENCE from alcohol and all other mind-altering drugs; and
1987: Therefore, be it RESOLVED, That we, the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in St. Louis, Missouri, June 16-18, 1987, express our total opposition to the manufacturing, distribution, sale, and consumption of alcoholic beverages; and
2006: RESOLVED, That we commend organizations and ministries that treat alcohol-related problems from a biblical perspective and promote ABSTINENCE and encourage local churches to begin and/or support such biblically-based ministries.
Volfan,
As you can see, the SBC has used the same harsh language to condemn the use of both alcohol and tobacco for decades and decades. The SBC has been consistent in their opposition to both. From a Southern Baptist perspective, how can you say it's O.K. to chew Redman on occasion but be so opposed to the consumption of a glass of wine on occasion? Clearly, the SBC has for nearly 100 years felt that the use of tobacco and alcohol are moral issues that the Bible does speak to - otherwise why have they spent so much time addressing these topics?
I apologize for this long post. And I can say here that I don't smoke. Never have, never will.
Oh Volfie! you've opened a can of worms now. May we "all be so filled with the knowledge of God's will in all spiritual wisdom that we understand and walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to Him and desiring to please Him in all things, bearing fruit in every good work and steadily growing and increasing in knowledge." selahV
Jim,
The list that you're trying to add to what I said contains some things that arent tertiary doctrines. The list you give contains some secondary doctrines. The Bible does deal with many of those things, and some of them could cause Christians to divide, and have caused Christians to divide.
Big Daddy,
Resolutions are resolutions. They are not binding on SBC Churches. I, too, would encourage people to not smoke or chew. It's very expensive to use tobacco, and it's very unhealthy. But, it's not a sin.
On the consumption of alcohol though, that's another story. The Bible does deal directly with drinking strong drink, or fermented, undiluted wine. Thus, drinking fermented wine is another matter altogether from smoking a cig.
Selah,
Now, you know that I wouldnt open any can of worms.
;)
David
One thing you are correct about David - cigs and wine are two very different things
one causes cancer, the other helps reduce heart disease!
No David - my list is all tertiary - just like yours!
Jim Champion
Volfan,
Can you explain why messengers to the SBC would choose to use the same harsh language in their condemnations of tobacco AND alcohol and their pleas to Southern Baptists to ABSTAIN from said addictive substances? Clearly those messengers at those annual conventions (specifically Richard Land) have felt that the Bible does speak against tobacco.
You know the Bible doesn't explicitly mention abortion and a plethora of other important moral issues but obviously that doesn't mean that abortion is not sin. We search the pages of Scripture in order to develop a Biblical Ethic (or as you right-wingers say a "biblical worldview). Well for decades the Biblical Ethic accepted by a majority of the messengers to various annual meetings of the SBC have found both alcohol and tobacco to be dangerous, dangerous enough to call on folks to practice abstinence. In those resolutions that dealt with both alcohol and tobacco, both were equally condemned. The messengers did not distinguish drinking as sinful and smoking as not sinful.
If you're interested in consistency, I think you should take a moment and take more than a passing glance at this subject.
BDW,
You know it doesn't do any good to debate with Hillbilly. His mind is made up and no amount of facts are going to change it. ;-)
Volfie
I guess my real question to you is - are you truly interested in unity wintin the SBC - or just unity of those that think like you.
I serve alongside several in my church who think along the same lines as you as well as a few who I would say are to the left of me. All hold to the fundamentals of the faith - as you say the primary things. for example more than a few enjoy an occasional glass of wine or beer - yet they are very active in missions (medical, building and giving), teach sunday school, serve on committees etc. A few of them even smoke or dip. I praise the Lord for these men and women - they put walk to their talk.
My thought is that if you were to work side by side with these folks you would love them as much as I do.
My question is - would you divide from them??
Would you divide from us if we had a female education or youth minister?
Would you divide from us if we didnt believe in a young earth?
Cant we just stick to the BFM - which makes no mention of creation, female deacons/ministers (other than senior pastor) or are we on an inevitable slide to landmarkism
Jim champion
Big Daddy,
Once again, the SBC can speak against whatever they feel is a bad thing for society, can they not? The SBC believes that using tobacco products is a bad thing for people, and they have spoken against it. I concur with my SB Brethren that tobacco use is a bad thing due to the high cost of it(it's wasting God's money), and due to health reasons. But, we cannot call it a sin. That's my point. It's not a sin that's mentioned in the Bible.
Jim,
I can serve God alongside people who smoke or chew. I would not want to be joined with people who deny creation, or who ordain women. Creation and the ordination of men only as ministers, or elders, are secondary issues that are important enough to divide over. The Bible speaks clearly about these things, and to deny creation, or to believe in ordaining women to be elders goes against the clear teaching of Scripture.
Can I serve the Lord with people who drink alcohol. Yes. And, I'm sure that there are people in my Church who drink occasionally. I still love them. I dont agree with them. And, I preach against it fromt he pulpit, and I would encourage them to not drink anything at anytime, but I still love them. Also, we would not make them Deacons in our Church.
Also, Jim, I'm no landmarkist. And, the only landmarkist that I know that comes into the blog world is Ben Stratton, and he's a good guy. I appreciate him. But, no, I'm not into landmarkism. So, I really dont know why you would say that remark.
David
David
The BFM only dealt with women as senior pastors. Scripture clearly speaks of Phoebe as a deacon. The creators of the lastest BFM were very careful not to exclude women deacons - too many SBC churches had female deacons and they didnt want to step on those toes :). How about women education or youth ministers, the BFM does not address them - only senior pastors.
HOw about an old earth creationist - do you divide from them - they (we) believe in a literal God Breathed creation, just have a problem with the young earth theory.
I think good old Ben Stratton is clapping his hands with glee every time something is posted by the BI crowd as they move closer and closer to his Landmarkist views
David, your theory of unity is just not very united.
Jim Champion
"I concur with my SB Brethren that tobacco use is a bad thing due to the high cost of it(it's wasting God's money), and due to health reasons. But, we cannot call it a sin. That's my point. It's not a sin that's mentioned in the Bible."
I'm confused on the line of logic here. We can't call using tobacco a sin because tobacco itself isn't mentioned in the scriptures. But wasting God's money (in any way) is a sin, right? Where do you draw the line?
Jeremy,
I always try to draw the line at what the Bible clearly says. Nowhere does it say that using tobacco is a sin. Nowhere. Thus, how can we call it a sin?
Now, personally, I believe that it's bad to use tobacco, because I personally believe that it's a waste of God's money; and due to the bad health issues. But, it's not a sin to use tobacco, just as it's not a sin to drink coffee and tea with caffiene.
Now, where did I put my glass of sweet tea? Oh yeah, there it is. Sluuuuuuuurp. Siiip. AAAAhhhh!
David
David: Do you think smoking marijuana is only a sin in the U.S. because it is illegal? The bible doesn't mention it.
Nicotine is one of the most deadly and highly addictive substances known to man.
It is common in the alcohol debate in the blogosphere to come at moderationists with something like "if you think drinking wine is ok then you must think smoking marijuana and snorting cocaine is ok too".
I trust you are not one of those who have used such an argument, since, as you know, marijuana and cocaine are not mentioned in the bible.
Neither are whiskey, rum, mead, or hard cider. The "strong drink" which is both cautioned against and commended in the bible, was probably some type of beer.
David, you have often said that the only reason people drink alcohol is to get "high", which is not quite right since alcohol is a depressant, but I know what you mean. But of course that isn't true. Some people drink because they are being sociable (not a good reason imo but not the same as to get high). Some drink it because they like the taste. Some because they think it is good for them.
But I think it is far easier to make the case that the only reason people use tobacco is to get high, that is to experience the mind-altering effects of nicotine.
Just so we're clear...
I could come into this blog and throw an "F" bomb out as a figure of speech to emphasize my point, and it will probably offend everyone greatly.
BUT it's not a sin because no where does the Bible mention the "F" word as a sin.
I see no difference between this and what you are saying about tobacco.
-Ted
David,
Enjoy your blog and your comments elsewhere.
Regarding your comments about eating, exercise, etc., thought you might be interested in the following verses:
They shall still bring forth fruit in old age; they shall be fat and flourishing. -Psalm 92:14
The liberal soul shall be made fat. -Proverbs 11:25
He that putteth his trust in the LORD shall be made fat. -Proverbs 28:25
Almost makes one want to convert to King James Only :-).
David R. Brumbelow
David B.,
:)
Those verses are some that I know well. Thanks for bringing them up here. Hallelujah!
Ted and Bill and others,
I dont think that the Lord wants anything to control our minds and hearts other than His Holy Spirit. We are to be controlled, or filled, with the Spirit. Thus, mind altering drugs that control our thinking and the way we act would be detrimental to being filled with the Spirit. It's also interesting to note that the Greek word for sorcerer is the same word that we get our English word "pharmacy." Here's Vine's Dictionary on the word....
<2,,5333,pharmakos>
an adjective signifying "devoted to magical arts," is used as a noun, "a sorcerer," especially one who uses drugs, potions, spells, enchantments, Rev. 21:8, in the best texts (some have pharmakeus), and Rev. 22:15.
Thus, I believe mind altering drugs to be on par with witchcraft and sorcery. Thus, it would be wrong. Dont you agree?
Bill, any fermented alcohol would fit the meaning of the word strong drink....it's a drink that can make you drunk.
Also, Ted, the verse in Colossians 3:8, amongst other verses, would answer you about saying vulgar, nasty, filthy language. The Bible is clear about it. It's wrong in the eyes of God to use base, filthy language.
And, as much as someone would like for tobacco products to be in the Bible, they are not. But, I would cry out with anyone that they are bad.
David
...but David...the Bible doesn't SAY anything specifically about the "F" word, so it must not be considered a sin. (Your logic...not mine).
Now OF COURSE it is a sin to use such language.
Similarly, the Bible doesn't say anything about tobacco, but it does say to keep the temple sacred in I Corinthians 3:17.
-Ted
David: No matter how you slice it, nicotine is a mind altering drug. Just google nicotine to see what effect it has on the mind.
It is far, far more addictive than alcohol.
You may have your own definition of strong drink, but I think it behooves us to treat the term as the bible treats it. It does not equate all alcoholic beverages as strong drink, and it does not universally and unequivocally condemn the use of strong drink.
Strong drink is fermented, undiluted wine. What would you call Jack Daniels? Fermented? Yea. Intoxicating? Yea.
Also, the verse in Colossians, and in other verses that we could quote, would certainly cover the "F" word. Puleease. The Bible says that filthy language is a sin. Filthy language should not be a part of a Christians vocabulary.
Also, I Corinthians 3:17 is about keeping sin out of our hearts. It's about keeping our temple, our body, free of sin...unpolluted. It's not about keeping nicotine out of our body. It's not about keeping caffiene out of our body. It's not about keeping fat out of our body. It's about keeping sin out of our life. And, why should we keep sin out of our life? Because our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit.
David
David / Volfan007,
David, you said in your comment above:
Also, I Corinthians 3:17 is about keeping sin out of our hearts. It's about keeping our temple, our body, free of sin...unpolluted. It's not about keeping nicotine out of our body. It's not about keeping caffiene out of our body. It's not about keeping fat out of our body. It's about keeping sin out of our life. And, why should we keep sin out of our life? Because our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit.
David,
Now where is the Sin that you are talking about. You are making False Accusations all over the Place on these Blog. Please call SIN, “SIN” and STOP making FALSE ACCUSATIONS…
David,
Can’t you see that your comments are not about UNITY IN THE CHURCH, which is what Your Post is suppose to be about. MORE DOUBLE-TALK!!!!
Wayne Smith
Wayne,
Many, many, many times, I read your comments and just scratch my head...wondering what in the world you're talking about.
David
David / Volfan007,
I guess that comes with Old Age, whether it be You or Me???????????
Wayne Smith
Ol' Hillbilly,
I know that you and I differ....often greatly....not to hijack your blog or anything but the following link to a story about a hindu sending an idol to Obama and the revelation that Obama carries a miniture of the same idol/hindu god as a token is much more relative to the situation we need to be addressing rather than the much smaller differences we as Christians often differ over. http://www.hindu.com/2008/06/25/stories/2008062556031500.htm
David: For the cause of transparency, Mark me down as not feeling bad to go to a restaurant that sells liquor. I also buy and sell from unbelievers and I'm still in good standing with both God and the church. :)
Now let me tell you the message of the gospel since Christ died on the cross. We don't have to live or believe as if he didn't.
Post a Comment