C. Micahel Patton over at Parchment and Pen suggests sometimes it often is; sometimes it isn't.
IS BAD DOCTRINE SIN?
by C Michael Patton
It is hard for me, as a teacher of theology, to consider anything worse than bad doctrine in the church. When people’s views of God become distorted, their lives follow suit. When someone believes it is always God’s will to heal their sickness, they are going to be left disillusioned and riddled with spiritual pain. When peripheral issues get elevated to the status of essentials (and this is bad doctrine too), the central message of the Gospel gets replaced or lost. I had a lady here at the Credo House the other day who said that God gave her a message. What was the message? That women do not inherit original sin, only men. She went through a long complicated argument. I could tell that this was incredibly important to her. She was insistent, assured, and demanding. She even wrote a book about it and gave it to me. It was the focus of her message! Was this sinful?
I suppose that I want bad doctrine to always be sin. That way, it is easy for me to explain why people don’t agree with me. If we are not on the same page theologically, the answer is simple: they are in sinful rebellion to the truth. Next…
But I am not sure this is always correct. I am pretty sure that bad doctrine is sinful, but I am not sure when it is sinful.
Let us talk about the polar extremes of this issue. It is easy to see that any rejection of Jesus is sinful. Now, one may do this with perfectly good doctrine. One may intellectually believe that Jesus is the Son of God who takes away the sins of the world. They may believe in the Trinity, the hypostatic union, justification by faith alone, and the like. But they simply refuse to accept God’s sovereignty over their lives. This is obviously the sin of rebellion. I always think of King Saul when it comes to this type of person. However, there are those who don’t have good doctrine at all. There are polytheists, who believe there are many gods. There are those who believe God is a force, not a person. There are those who do not even believe in God. Is this sin? I believe it is. Ultimately, it is a rejection of God. It is a rejection of the truths God has plainly revealed about himself and his nature – truths which some people choose to turn away from, in favor of lies. In Romans 1 we see this very clearly.
Rom 1:18-19
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
Notice here that there are certain things about God that he has made plain, or clear. These things have been revealed through creation and can be observed by all. Notice what things are plain.
Rom 1:20
For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes– his eternal power and divine nature– have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse.
The word “attributes” is not really in the original. But this probably expresses Paul’s thoughts well. It is the “invisible things” of God that are plain. His “power” and “nature” are singled out as examples. Paul does not go into detail about what invisible things can be known about God through creation, but whatever these things are (most certainly his power, singularity, and transcendence), the reason for people’s rejection of them – the reason for bad doctrine – is clearly explained: people “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.”
If this is the case, then bad doctrine is not so much sinful in and of itself; it is the result of sinfulness. In other words, people suppress what is plain about God (and, I suppose, the Bible) so they can continue on in the lifestyle they desire. Bad doctrine serves to facilitate their sin. This is easy enough to see in atheism. If there is no God, there is no punishment for sin. The same can be said for those who reject God’s righteousness, judgement, wrath, and the doctrine of hell. This is suppression of truth in favor of sin.
Are there cases where people are legitimately deceived and their bad doctrine is not due to a favoring of sin? This could certainly be true in some situations, but we are going to have to let God work this out.
Other times, bad doctrine is not so bad. In other words, I think egalitarianism is bad doctrine for the most part. But I am not sure it can be described as “suppression of truth in favor of sin.” After all, there are some very good Christians who are egalitarians due to convictions brought about by their studies. I don’t think their bad doctrine is sinful. And if I am wrong about my complementarian views, I don’t think it is sinful. I could say the same thing about all non-cardinal issues. There are just so many things that we are not sure about. Someone is wrong, but this does not mean they are in rebellion. With the things that are evident, plain, and clear, I think denial of these particulars is the product of sin and is, therefore, sinful.
The best I can do right now is say that bad doctrine is often, but not always, sin.
Showing posts with label doctrine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label doctrine. Show all posts
Friday, August 09, 2013
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Triablogue: The optional Jesus
Yet another referral to Triablogue, but certainly not without good reason: Triablogue: The optional Jesus.
Indeed, liberalism in the context of Christian theology has a long record of being content not merely to see things in a different-but-understandable way but ultimately to rebel against the Scriptures in one way or another. This is how MLK held the heretical beliefs that he held while masking them with standard Christian terminology, or how the saying “A little Greek is a dangerous thing” is proven in the case of queer Christian theology (as it were), or maybe even why someone like Carlton Pearson was able to resurrect his preaching career.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
How Much Do I Need to Know?
How Much Do I Need to Know?

“How far is too far?” Growing up in conservative evangelicalism, that question was common in youth group. Of course, we were talking about physical intimacy. When everything’s reducible to making a rule or breaking a rule, it’s important to know when you’ve “crossed the line.” I’m not downplaying the importance of guiding young people through the mysterious era of puberty—and even in suggesting wise guidelines where there is no clear chapter and verse. But when “How far can I go?” is the main question, we’ve already lost too much. It suggests that character has not been formed by life in a particular community—especially home and the church—when people just want you to net it out for them like that. Usually we ask that question when we’re just about to dive in. We just want to know when to push the eject button.
A similar phenomenon happens when people ask, “How much do you need to know to be saved?” It’s like asking, “How ignorant can I be?” At one end, there’s the official Roman Catholic answer: assent to everything the church teaches. It’s called implicit faith because you can’t possibly know for yourself everything that the church teaches. The Geneva reformer John Calvin described this view as ignorance disguised as humility. At the other end, there is that line from evangelist D. L. Moody: “I can write the gospel on a dime.” How much do you need to know? Enough to lead someone to Christ in an elevator.
We recall the question of the rich young ruler. Assuming that he had so far done everything he knew to do, he asked Jesus, “What’s the one thing I have to do to be saved?” Jesus pressed him to face the full brunt of the law, showing him that he had not even begun to fulfill the duty of loving God with total devotion and loving his neighbor as himself. As confessional “Reformation” folks, we get that. However, we are so good at works-righteousness that we merely shift the bar of merit from things we do to things we know.
According to Scripture, the object of our faith is neither our actions or our knowledge, but the person of Jesus Christ. Of course, trusting a person involves knowledge and assent, but we’re saved by Christ, not by doctrines. The purpose of the doctrine is to direct us to the right person and to keep us looking to him until that day when faith yields to sight.
In his Great Commission, Jesus called his disciples to go to the whole world preaching the gospel, baptizing, and teaching them to observe everything he had delivered. He mentions things in a certain order: faith comes by hearing the preached gospel, converts are baptized along with their children (you knew I had to say that), and then is set for a whole life of learningeverything. The “learning everything” part of it is not the condition for salvation, but the wonderful privilege of unpacking the gifts we’ve been given for the rest of our life. Faith is not mere assent to truths, much less blind submission. It’s trust in Christ. To trust in someone, you have to know something about them and have some confidence that they can do what they promise. However, faith is not saving as a virtue in itself, but because it embraces Christ who is our righteousness, holiness, and redemption. A weak faith clings to a strong Savior.
Our faith in people rises or falls with the reliability of their word. We lose our faith in a friend who promises something over and over again but never comes through. We stop believing what he or she says. A broken marriage vow cuts the cord of trust. In many cases it can be repaired, but it doesn’t come quickly. Instead of focusing on our faith, we should focus on the Triune God as the promise-maker and promise-fulfiller. Look at the history of God’s promises and his track-record in delivering. That’s what the prophets do when they contrast the reliability of Yahweh with the breathless idols. Look especially to the one in whom all of these promises reach their goal: Christ’s birth, life, death, resurrection, ascension, and return in glory at the end of the age. “For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory” (2 Cor 1:20).
So we can err in either direction.
The first error is to assume that we only need to know the bare minimum that is necessary for salvation. There are too many exhortations in Scripture to go on to maturity, to grow up into Christ through the knowledge of his transforming word, and so forth. Discipleship is first and foremost a humble eagerness to hear every word that comes from the mouth of our Lord. However untaught and even confused we have been, we are called to grow up by instruction and participation in God’s means of grace. How much do we need to know? Everything.
The second error is to assume that we need to know everything correctly in order to be saved. Who among us can claim that without delusional pride? According to the Great Commission, unbelievers hear the gospel, believe, and are baptized. Then they go on to maturity. If it’s unbiblical to require people to yield blind assent (implicit faith) in everything the church teaches, it’s also unscriptural to require them to have explicit knowledge of and assent to everything Scripture teaches. Indeed, there is no expectation in Scripture that one knows explicitly even everything that is important.
Reacting against the first error, many freshly-minted reformers veer toward the second. We call it the “cage phase,” when those who’ve just discovered the doctrines of grace wonder if they were truly believers before—and question the status of everyone else who remains under the pall of ignorance. After all, Arminians believe in free will and deny God’s electing grace. They believe that people can lose their salvation if they don’t cooperate with God’s grace. How could they possibly be true believers? Aren’t they trusting partly in themselves and partly in Christ? Ironically, we end up advocating salvation by works just as surely as our worst fears concerning others. We’ve just shifted the basis from moral to doctrinal correctness. In my own cage phase I wondered if I was even a believer experiencing the “Romans revolution.” Looking back on it now, I can see how God used those early years at home and in church as crucial for developing a love for and basic knowledge of God’s Word through which God led me to the doctrines of grace. With every growth spurt, I marvel at my spiritual immaturity that, at the time, seemed like quite an advance on the previous stage. Shouldn’t that lead me to a little humility about where I am now?
How much did those folks know in order to be converted in Acts 2? God has fulfilled all of his promises to Israel in Jesus Christ, specifically in his death and resurrection. “What must we do to be saved?”, they asked. Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Ac 2:38). A drowning person doesn’t need to know a lot about the rescuer in order to place his or her confidence in that person.
Question 2 of the Heidelberg Catechism asks, “What must you know to live and die in the joy of this comfort?” Answer: “Three things: first, how great my sin and misery are [Rom 3:9-10; 1 Jn 1:10]; second, how I am redeemed from all my sins and misery [Jn 17:3; Ac 4:12; 10:43]; third, how I am to thank God for such deliverance [Mat 5:16; Rom 6:13; Eph 5:8-10; 2 Tim 2:15; 1 pet 2:9-10].” Each of these is simple enough to know in order to cling to Christ and yet deep enough to swim in throughout one’s life without touching bottom.
Trusting in a person, based on certain promises this person has made, can coexist with confusion and ignorance. One may trust in the Triune God known in Christ as he is clothed in the gospel without being able to pass a doctrinal exam. At the same time, we go on to maturity, growing in the grace and knowledge of our Savior, because we want to understand the richness, depth, and vastness of our inheritance in Christ. Faith is constantly threatened by doubts, anxieties, and circumstances; it needs to be fed regularly by God’s Word, grounded in his gospel and guided by his law. A knowledge of the gospel that you can write on a dime may direct you to Christ, but it will hardly sustain you during the crises of life. And sooner or later, it will be taken for granted like the alphabet—perhaps even forgotten.
Yes, ignorance and perhaps confusion, but what about outright denial: heresy? I’ll take up that one in the next post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)