Essay 22

 

SOME CRUCIAL DISTINCTIONS (1)

 

One of my subscribers -- Dean Bagley of Edinburg, Texas -- suggested that I might do some essays on logic, particularly  in reference to how that discipline informs the study of Scripture. I explained that logic is an expansive course of study, usually requiring at least a college semester of work, and therefore a little much for what we do in these essays. But I might do some things that we do in logic. One of these is drawing distinctions between things that are similar, and therefore often confused.

 

  Logic calls for clarity of thought, which in turn may call for definition of terms. Voltaire had a way of saying, "I'll not argue with you until you define your terms." He realized that people may not differ as much as they think, for their differences often lie in the terminology they use. People often talk past each other -- never coming to a meeting of minds --  in that their differences are more verbal than real. And sometimes we fail to see the significant distinction in terms that we tend either to equate or to confuse. Such as:

 

  1. Bible/Word of God

 

   The word of God was a reality long before a single line of the Bible was written. We are not to suppose that "Thy word is a light to my feet" refers to the Bible -- including that particular line in Ps. 119:105!! I don't think the Bible ever refers to itself as the word of God, but as the holy Scriptures. It was the case with Jesus. He had come to fulfill "what is written" or "that the Scriptures might be fulfilled." He was himself the word of God (Rev. 19:13). It was the word of God that created all things (Ps. 33:6). We would never say that about the Bible.

 

 

  We err when we equate the terms. Like our Lord, we can refer to the Bible as holy Scripture, and we can say that much of Scripture is the word of God -- but by no means all of it. Some of the Bible -- such as most of the Psalms and much of Job -- is the word of men -- who are sometimes complaining to God! But it is still holy Scripture and it informs us, and sometimes we find the word of God in the word of man. All of the Bible is holy Scripture, and it is inspired -- the canon of which was decided by the church -- but it is not all the word of God.

 

  The main point here is that we are to recognize that the word of God -- which is eternal and absolute -- is so much more than the Bible. It also liberates us from a questionable doctrine of only recent origin -- the inerrancy of the Bible. Yes, of course, the word of God when revealed in Scripture is inerrant and infallible, but not necessarily the Bible as a whole. It never makes such a claim for itself.

 

  When one draws this distinction, there is always the question -- how does one determine when reading the Bible what is God's word and what is not? The church through the centuries has not found that a problem -- it becomes evident through serious, prayerful application of mind to the Scriptures. We are to seek the guidance of the Spirit. Besides, t doesn't take an Einstein to see when Satan is speaking and when God is!! Or when a brash youth like Elihu is speaking and when an inspired prophet of God is speaking!! Even the apostle Paul sometimes concedes that he is speaking on his own, not from the Lord. The catholic/universal church has never believed that everything in the Bible is the word of God.

 

  2. Faith/Opinion

 

  Here is where some of us seriously err -- making opinions matters of faith, and failing to recognize that faith is always at the center, while opinions are always marginal. Faith saves, opinions do not. Faith is essential, opinions are not. We should first think of the faith as trust in Jesus as Lord -- belief that he is the risen Christ. To say that all else is marginal is hardly an overstatement.

 

  Except that there is the larger reference of what might be called general faith, or "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3), or "those things most surely believed among us" (Jn. 1:1). These are the facts of the gospel and the core teaching of the apostles, which are the essentials. We can agree on what the Bible actually says (matters of faith), and we can allow for differences on what we think it means by what it says (opinions, theories, theology).

 

  Thus the axiom: "In essentials, unity; in opinions, liberty; in all things, love." The motto works when we concede that the essentials are only those things necessary to being saved and to live the Christian life, while opinions are theories and theologies about those essentials. For example, the "one hope" of Eph. 4:4 is essential to our faith, and here we find unity. But theories of how this one hope will be realized are opinions, and here we bear and forbear in love.

 

  3. Gospel/Doctrine

 

  What a tragedy when the church -- even its ministers -- does not know what the gospel is! We muddy the water when we insist that everything in the New Testament is the gospel, and that one is unfaithful to the gospel if he is wrong about some point of doctrine -- or if he follows some method in doing the Lord's work that we deem unscriptural.

 

  This has been the excuse for divisions and sub-divisions. The "other side" is untrue to the gospel if they are wrong about the millennium, or if they do not have the right theory of biblical interpretation or inspiration, or if they use such methods as societies and instrumental music. If a church has an "unscriptural" form of government or if women take a public role in ministry, it is unfaithful to the gospel. If others differ with us on the mode of baptism or the frequency of the Lord's supper, we sometimes accuse them of not preaching the gospel.

 

  A person or a church might be wrong about numerous things and still be right about Jesus, who is the essence of the gospel. Errors in doctrine are not necessarily a repudiation of the gospel.

 

  The Bible is clear as to what constitutes the gospel. In 1 Cor. 15:1-5, Paul spells out the facts of "the gospel which I preached to you": that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He arose again on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.

 

  This was the apostolic proclamation -- God  made Jesus of Nazareth Lord and Christ through the resurrection from the dead. It was the message of salvation. Paul refers to the gospel as that "by which you were saved" (1 Cor. 15:2). It was also the bond of union. All those who were "in Christ" through obedience to the gospel were united one body, the church.

 

  The apostles' teaching or doctrine grew out of the gospel, but is to be distinguished from the gospel. There was first the gospel, which gave birth to the church, after which evolved over some decades the apostolic teaching -- the  didache -- which was instruction on how to live the life of faith, which makes up most of the New Testament.

 

  Unlike the gospel, which consisted of facts or propositions about Christ, the didache involved detailed instruction, theories, theology, and even opinions -- some of which was "hard to understand," to quote Peter on Paul (2 Pet. 3:16). The book of Romans, for instance, alludes to the gospel, but it is mostly doctrine. Romans in fact contains some rather heavy theology -- "hard to understand" -- and therefore subject to different interpretations. No two of us are likely to see everything in Romans alike. And that is OK, for it -- as much of the New Testament -- lends itself to diverse understanding.

 

  But that is not the case with the gospel. We are to understand it alike, for it is made up of facts (testimony) about a person --which we believe or disbelieve. This is why the gospel is the basis of unity between believers, and not doctrine. In doctrinal matters we move from babes in Christ to maturity. We are in different grades in the school of apostolic doctrine -- and some of us will never be much more than babes in Christ. That too is OK, for we all differ in potential. God judges "according to what a man has, not what he has not."

 

  This means there will be differences in our doctrinal understanding -- some will be more charismatic, some more Pentecostal, some more premillennial, some more Calvinistic, some more Arminian, etc., etc. We'll also differ in the methods we use and the institutions we create -- due to different interpretations of what it means to be the church of Jesus Christ. It has always been the case, and probably will continue to be until our Lord comes to claim us as his own.

 

  But we can all unite in the good news (gospel) of Jesus Christ. This is what makes us one in Christ -- in spite of differences growing out of our different understanding of biblical teaching. We unite upon the biblical gospel, not the biblical teaching!

 

  This is why we can refer to unity in diversity. Our unity is in a person, Jesus Christ our Lord (the gospel). Our diversity is not only in our individual differences -- God made no two of us exactly alike -- but in the different ways we see the Bible, the church, the Christian life, and even the world. We can no more see everything alike that we can look alike. 

 

  But we can still be one -- gloriously united in forbearing love -- by our common loyalty and devotion to Christ. That is the gospel. All else is marginal. This does not mean that doctrine is unimportant, for it is very important in that it nurtures us in the faith. But it does mean that we can differ in doctrine and still be united in Christ, the gospel.