CHARIS SHALOM

While I haven’t taken the time this evening to digest all the Scriptures you’ve cited here, I do think you’re right on target, Bryan.

We spend FAR too much time making sure everyone knows ABOUT God, but not NEARLY enough time helping each other actually know HIM. It’s so much easier to do the former… to describe God’s workings in terms we can all understand… to define “doctrines” and ensure everyone conforms to those particular understandings… to grow in knowledge.

But to truly know God? It’s a whole different animal. It requires personal connection… intimacy… commitment… HEART. It’s a growth of relationship, one far more difficult than growth of knowledge.

The funny thing about this? The latter leads to the former. When our entire heart’s desire is to know God intimately, we begin to understand more about God. I simply don’t understand why we spend so much time trying to get the cart before the horse… to educate people with doctrine, in hopes that they’ll develop real faith in God at least somewhat separate from relationship with Him. Shouldn’t we be focusing more on helping people develop a real relationship with God, and let doctrine flow from that?

[...] a post today that could trigger some interesting thought and discussion on the matter. Entitled, “Doctrine Saves”, his post asks an important question… do we misunderstand what doctrine truly is? Do we place [...]

John, dude, thanks for the link and for the positive read of a touchy subject.

Bryan, as for me, I believe you nailed it. God created us to be his eternal family, and gave us the Scriptures and doctrine as teaching tools to help lead us into what we’re called to, an experiential relationship with Love. When we make it primarily about the tools, rather than the relationship, to say we’ve missed it doesn’t do it justice.

By the way, I attend church with Cindy Knight, who you and your family just spent several months with. She speaks very highly of you all.

I think a more honest title for this post would have been “Doctrine Saves, But…” Interestingly, one commenter linked to this post in a post of his own titled, “The (Over)Importance of Doctrine”.

“Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?” (Ephesians 2)

“Are these hopelessly irreconciliable? Is Paul telling the Galatians and the Ephesians that faith alone saves, even that a gift of God’s grace, but telling Timothy that he can save himself by good doctrine and good works?”

You’re conflating two distinct entities in Paul: law and doctrine. Paul’s entire New Testament corpus is doctrine (teaching). Doctrine in this context is “what you heard”. God gives His Spirit, not because we observe the law, but because we believe… DOCTRINE.

“…if it is [if Paul is instructing Timothy to maintain sound doctrine – i.e. all of Paul’s teaching, not just the “essential” parts], it would seem that Paul is telling Timothy that he better have his understandings of theology (e.g., soteriology (the doctrine of salvation), baptisms, Holy Spirit, Christology, eschatology (the study of end times), missiology, spiritual warfare, and all such things) straight or else he may risk his and others’ salvation.”

Is a wrong understanding of who Christ is (Christology) and how He saves (Soteriology) not eternally dangerous?

“It seems he must be talking about the “teaching” (that is the meaning of the Greek word for doctrine) that there is only one thing that saves: God saves us, by His grace, by giving us the faith to believe on Jesus Christ and what He did for us at the cross.”

How does God do this? Why? For whom? What is “His grace”? How does God “give faith”? Why did Christ have to die? These are all questions that must be seriously and intelligently answered with doctrine.

“That’s it. That is doctrine. That is what matters. God saves.”

That’s just plain silly. “God saves” is an empty phrase without filling it in with A LOT of doctrine.

“Given that, why do we get so complicated?”

I don’t know. Why don’t you ask Paul? If “God saves” is sufficient, why did God use Paul (and Peter, John, James, etc.) to communicate all this messy doctrine to complicate it?

“The story is all about God, and His work, not about our ability to pontificate on Who God Is or how much we know about arcane or disputable issues of theology. It simply is about getting to know God in a personal and real way, and the only way we can do that is to be reconciled to Him through the work Jesus did at the cross.”

I think this might serve as an example of the inadequacy of your approach to doctrine. What does it mean to “be reconciled to Him”? The current controversy over the New Perspective on Paul drives right at the heart of this question. Does the Doctrine of Justification (hardly an arcane issue) have to do with God’s reconciling atonement for the sins of individuals in Christ, or the mere declaration of God’s expansion of His Covenant (racial reconciliation)?

“Once we are reconciled and receive the Holy Spirit, then we are new creations and can move on to learning more about Him.”

BUT HOW ARE WE RECONCILED? HOW DO WE RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT? The “elementary doctrines” of Christ, repentance, dead works, faith, etc. are those things we hear (doctrine) and must believe in order to be saved. All these things must be explained, because they do not naturally occur to the carnal mind. These explanations are doctrine.

“All they need to know is that they need Jesus because without Him they are separate from the Father and will be forever unless they submit to Jesus as Lord. They need to know God loves them. They need to see how gracious God really is.”

Why do they need Jesus? Why are they separated from the Father? (Are they separated from the Father? I’m not sure how useful this language of separation is. No one is “separated from the Father”. God has a relationship with all His creatures. The question should be this: Is the Father related to you in His wrath, or in His grace, love and mercy?) Why and how does God love them? What does it mean for God to be “gracious”? Why, how and to whom is He gracious?

These are all legitimate and intelligent questions that demand legitimate and intelligent answers. The answers to these questions are exactly the things you are eschewing: doctrine.

P.S. Do you evangelize Mormons? If yes, how and why? If no, why not?

Jim B.’s last blog post..Lakeland Revival & Roman Catholic Pilgrimages

I would evangelize a Mormon. Heck, I’d evangelize you. I would tell them how Christ has changed my life. I think many call that a testimony. And I’d tell them why it is Christ can do that. Who He is and what He did (God, the Cross). And, in so doing, if appriopriate and necessary, i’d also show them the bibilcal foundations for all of it.

thanks for commenting. I’ve written several other posts along these lines. Some may address some of your other points. A search for “doctrine” will take you to them.

I really don’t believe someone has to know all the ways God saves them. They need to trust that God will save them and follow the Way He has provided (Christ/cross). I think they need to know that the cross finished the work to make the Way for them, but to know exactly what happened? Theologians still argue about that. Does that mean that some aren’t saved because they might be wrong? Can God save me even if I don’t understand every thing about Atonement? I mean, gosh, what if limited Atonement is wrong; are all 5-pointers hell-bound?

How does all the theology really translate to a 7 year old? I believe God loves 7 year olds too. Do they have to understand every aspect of justification or do they need to trust that God justifies through Jesus? How about a person with an IQ of 80? How about someone in the church at Antioch that died before any of the NT was written?

Are you saying that ever word Paul and Peter and others wrote in the NT is doctrine? Surely you aren’t. And why is it I can say “surely you aren’t”? Could it be because just because Paul taught someone something through the words in the letter that he never intended for those words to be included in anyone’s interpretation of such phrases as “keep sound doctrine.” We still need to determine what, in context, Paul meant when he said that. Both for the original reader and, then, from there we can begin to see how God means for us to apply it today.

Still on a journey am I, so I do appreciate the conversation. Please do, though, stop telling yourself that I eschew doctrine. i don’t. I think I am learning what it really is. And I love it. I love doctrine.

This last part are your words with my answers in brackets, and I hope I illustrate teh simplicity of the Truth.

Why do they need Jesus? [Separated from God by sin.] Why are they separated from the Father? [By sin.] (Are they separated from the Father? [Yes.] I’m not sure how useful this language of separation is. No one is “separated from the Father”. [Oh this is good, your words here, because it illustrates the problem of language - the good thing is that when you really witness to a real live person you can pray for grace and words that will communicate to them.] God has a relationship with all His creatures [some theologians wouldn't agree, which is another reason that this issue may not be key to relating the Story]. The question should be this: Is the Father related to you in His wrath, or in His grace, love and mercy?) Why and how does God love them [Why do I need to know how? He loves them. He loves them. He's always loved them. and he demonstrates this through the cross. Through the Bible. through Jesus.]? What does it mean for God to be “gracious” [God is a giving God.]? Why, how and to whom is He gracious [to all who would receive from the One Who gives]?

Okay, i’m not sure that worked, because it will work you up into questions. Have you ever really just spent 10 minutes witnessing to someone? If you just had 3 minutes to tell your story what would you say?? Can someone be saved from a one minute testimony?? ABSOLUTELY!!! And the fact that such is true demonstrates something, I believe, about all this talk about doctrine.

Now, yes, there is more than salvation and we are to make disciples. BUT, how do we do that? Do we teach them right knowledge or do we teach them right living? The truth, of course, is that the two are inseparable. But what really is right knowledge that Jesus called us to? And where to such knowledge come from?

Okay, too long, and I’m tired of writing. I’ve been sick for a while and I’m worn down.

Brian,

Are you familiar with The White Horse Inn or Michael Horton? White Horse Inn is my favorite podcast, and I listened to the most recent broadcast this morning – “The Case for Theology & Apologetics”. It’s funny how God brings things together sometimes. If you’re interested, you can download the broadcast here for free:

http://whitehorseinn.org/#currentbroadcast

Our topic is addressed in large measure in this conversation. It’s no longer than 45 minutes.

…

I sense you’re tiring of this conversation, and I am beginning to fatigue myself. I engage people in these kinds of conversations, because I passionately believe that this kind of shallow faith will not endure. Future generations will want something deeper. With all due respect, you’re last comment is illustrative of this. Every shallow response only begs more questions. Questions that can only be answered by getting down & dogmatic. (”The dogma IS the drama.”)

And one more Mormon question (you really haven’t substantively interacted with this at all – I wonder if you believe Mormons are Christians?): You tell Mormon Mark how Jesus has changed your life, and how you believe He can change his too. Mormon Mark replies, “Amen, brother! Jesus HAS changed my life! Let me tell you how…” Mormon Mark then regales you with tales of good deeds and a changed heart. What then?

I hope you feel well soon.

God Bless

Jim B.’s last blog post..Lakeland Revival & Roman Catholic Pilgrimages

Jim,

You really have been gracious, and I appreciate that. I pray that this reply will all be received with the love with which I write it. I am praying over it and rereading it and praying again. God, may I not write anything out of any spirit but the Spirit you give.

Here goes:

Have you ever noticed you always spell my name incorrectly? I forgive you. I just find it intersting that someone who wants to stand for correctness with regards to words cannot get my name right.

Did you realize you called my faith shallow? I’m still scratching my head trying do determine how anyone but God can know how deep my faith is. Do you normally teach others by calling them shallow?

Do you believe that you personally can argue a Mormon into believing? You indicate so by your arguments. But do you really believe that?

I personally believe the only One who can convert Mormon Mark is the Holy Spirit. I can simply plant and water and feed. Now, you may say – see that’s doctrine. And I’d say, yes it is, but not the objective and cognitive kind to which you are referring – definitely not it alone. And to the extent that there is cognitive information that needs to be shared for salvation it is quite small. Think thief on a cross.

That’s worth saying again, in case the problem that words create crept up just then.

Think thief on a cross.

The dogma is nothing. Dogma is dead. The Word is alive and active and two edged. It isn’t static. There are things it teaches us in state/positionally, but it never stops there. It moves us beyond factual knowledge into real life. The Word is a light to a path, my path. As I move it moves. It lights up the way and it keeps moving.

The only thing i really tire of, Jim, is that all our discussions prove the point that words aren’t enough and that words lead to division, something God hates. Proverbs 6. A mere Doctrine of words is never enough. Words get misunderstood, misconstrued, read over, glossed over, and have little meaning APART FROM THE SPIRIT OF GOD.

So, when I see you completely misreading some of my words I can see that in part it is because I am sometimes a poor communicator. In part it is because you are sometimes a poor listener. In part it is because we define and use some of the same words differently. And, all of those things add up to two ships passing in the night. And this will always happen with words, unless and until the Holy Spirit illuminates the heart and ignites them and brings them to life.

I wish you would have answered some of my questions. I may not have answered yours to your satisfaction, but I did try to do so.

I hesitate to ask more, but perhaps they are for me as much as anyone.

Isn’t it interesting how james tells us not to just listen to the word, but also to do what it says? Objective facts of doctrine, as you define doctrine – how do you do them? And when you have certain doctrinal distinctives that you absolutely must insist are correct (beyond Christ), how can you exercise the wisdom of heaven? Being “pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.” How does one argue about a particular set of doctrinal beliefs and bring about unity in Christ? They might be persuasive to some and with those few create uniformity in a set of beliefs, but will that ever be unity in Christ?

Let’s keep praying, as Paul did:

that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, [will] give [us] the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that [we] may know him better.”

Wow – such interesting conversations. As I read through all these comments, I kept hearing the second half of 1 Corinthians 13:1 in my head; the part that says without love, “I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.” Now maybe it is because I know Bryan, but his comments seem to flow out of his love – for Christ and for others. I have no idea who Jim is, but the comments sound just as I imagine the Pharisees sounded. Luke 14:1-6 and Mark 7:6-16 are two more passages which came to mind as I read the debate.

Michelle,

Would you consider publicly referring to a professing believer (one you admittedly don’t know) as a loveless Pharisee to be a judgmental act?

What, exactly, have I said here that you consider Pharisaical?

As the HipHopopatumus once said, “Why? Why? Be more constructive with your feedback!”

Jim B.’s last blog post..Sometimes I Weep

BrYan,

I should have gotten your name right, especially since my wife has an atypical “Y”-spelling of her name (Katy). However, if my misspelling of your name is truly being employed here as some kind of counterargument; or as an allusion to my supposed thoughtlessness… lame. Off the top of my head (without looking at your blog/profile), I know you are married, have children, live and minister in the UK, work with YWAM (or used to?) and left a career as a corporate attorney (for Walmart and Tyson?) to minister full time. But yes, I misspelled your name.

A few hours after leaving my last comment, I figured my “shallow faith” comment would cause a reaction. I probably should have been clearer. To be fair, I didn’t call YOU shallow. I said, “…I passionately believe that this kind of shallow faith will not endure.” In the context of our conversation, I thought it would be clear that I was speaking of the doctrinal content of the faith you (and many others) communicate to the world. “God saves” is shallow. If this is all God wanted to communicate to us, why 66 books? Why the belabored arguments of Paul?

I think we insult the intellectual capacities of our hearers when we dumb down the Gospel.

“Do you believe that you personally can argue a Mormon into believing?”

First off, what’s the point of this question? If one cannot “argue” people into belief, then… what? Stare lovingly into their eyes and pray?

Paul certainly thought he could argue folks in. (Unless, of course, you are using the word “argue” to connote some kind of mean-spirited, cable news, shout-fest.) What is preaching? It is the presentation of a message. It is a defense of Christ’s Gospel. It is argument.

Now, if you mean to ask if I believe I personally have the persuasive powers within me to change a man’s heart so that he accepts what I convey to him, then no. But, again, what’s the point of the question? God’s sovereignty in election does not negate the need for preaching (“arguing”). How can they be saved if they do not hear?

“I personally believe the only One who can convert Mormon Mark is the Holy Spirit. I can simply plant and water and feed.”

Plant what? I have never said the Holy Spirit is uninvolved in conversion. I have been trying to argue that the Holy Spirit works through a particular means, namely, the preaching of the Word – through doctrine.

“Now, you may say – see that’s doctrine. [Yep, I just did.] And I’d say, yes it is, but not the objective and cognitive kind to which you are referring – definitely not it alone.”

If by “not it alone” you mean to say that Christians need to be salt and light; that Christians need to testify to the joy and hope of Christ living in them through a life of love, humility, service, etc. then I would agree. BUT, people are saved through the preaching of the Word (doctrine). People are NOT saved by my wife’s cookies, tasty as they are. People ARE saved by the preaching of the Word (doctrine). But, of course, this preaching will be sorely hindered if the preachers are hypocrites and not subjectively living out this Word.

“And to the extent that there is cognitive information that needs to be shared for salvation it is quite small. Think thief on a cross.”

Again, you’re argument here seems to be against God and Paul and John and Peter, etc. Why would we reduce the Gospel to the lowest common denominator? Why on earth should we use the thief on the cross as a normative rule for evangelism? It makes no sense! If I am witnessing to a man on his death bed, a man with literally minutes to live, then yes, I would distill the Gospel as much as possible. But even here, I will need to communicate more than “God saves”. However, what Biblical principle would lead us to use the truncated message delivered to the crucified thief or a death bed penitent as the evangelistic norm? Why the drawn-out and detailed arguments of Romans?

Can God save through a less-than-perfect, less-than-full, presentation of the Gospel? Yes. (Though, let us not forget that if we are less-than-perfect or less-than-full at the wrong points, God WON’T save.) Should we therefore reduce the Gospel to its most imperfect, vacuous form? This seems like sloth.

“The dogma is nothing. Dogma is dead. The Word is alive and active and two edged.”

Yikes! The Word IS Dogma!

“Official Christianity, of late years, has been having what is known as “a bad press.” We are constantly assured that the churches are empty because preachers insist too much upon doctrine–“dull dogma,” as people call it. The fact is the precise opposite. It is the neglect of dogma that makes for dullness. The Christian faith is the most exciting drama that ever staggered the imagination of man–and the dogma is the drama.”

- Dorothy Sayers

“I wish you would have answered some of my questions.”

Please tell me what questions I have failed to answer. I also become frustrated in these kinds of conversations when one party refuses to answer questions. I will attempt to answer any questions you have.

“Isn’t it interesting how james tells us not to just listen to the word, but also to do what it says?”

Have I communicated ANYWHERE that I didn’t believe it was important to do the things sound doctrine tells us to do?

“Objective facts of doctrine, as you define doctrine – how do you do them?”

Much Christian doctrine is not a matter of doing, but believing. If we are saved by faith, then we are saved by a belief in particular things – particular doctrines. I’m not sure how one “does” the Trinity or Justification. Though, a right understanding of these doctrines – true faith – will produce good works (good “doing”). And a right understanding of Christian doctrine will fill the believer with love, joy and hope. This love, joy and hope will spill forth into the lives of others (service). BUT IF IT ALL DOES NOT START WITH FAITH – WITH A BELIEF IN PARTICULAR CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES, then it is all rubbish.

“And when you have certain doctrinal distinctives that you absolutely must insist are correct (beyond Christ)…”

Which doctrines are “beyond Christ”? You see, Bryan, all these questions drive us to the kind of doctrinal debates you seem to want to avoid.

“…how can you exercise the wisdom of heaven? Being “pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.” How does one argue about a particular set of doctrinal beliefs and bring about unity in Christ?”

Was Athanasius not pure? Not peace loving? Not considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit? Was Augustine? Was Luther? Are any theologians any of these things? Are all Christians who insist on unity IN truth impure dividers?

Forgive the analogy if it offends you, but I can’t help think of the naïve pacifist when I read the above comment. Just as holding hands and singing for peace won’t create peace – just as peace is often (if not always) purchased with conflict – unity in Christ is founded upon doctrines that have been won through much warring (hopefully, peaceful, courteous, charitable and non-violent warring). Just look at the Council of Nicea and the Arian conflict. Most of the Church at that time viewed the controversy over the Trinity and deity of Christ as you seem to view most doctrinal controversies today. If Athanasius had not conquered the prevailing view, the Church would have fallen into a heresy most Christians have historically held to be damnable.

One can argue about a particular set of doctrinal beliefs without necessarily dividing the Body of Christ. (Of course, if the beliefs being opposed are heresies that place its adherents outside Christ, then division/separation is both necessary and loving. Determining which beliefs fall into this category would require more of the kind of dialogue you seem to want to avoid.) I can disagree with my paedobaptist brothers, debate them, and even choose to fellowship apart from them (though, I personally wouldn’t feel obligated to church apart over this issue), without destroying my unity with them in Christ. All Christians are unified in Christ. I might disagree passionately with my charismatic and Pentecostal brethren, but they are still my brethren. I might believe their errors will have serious negative consequences for future generations, but they are still my brethren.

I think too much emphasis is sometimes placed on external unity. What is important for Christians to recognize is the mystical reality that all (true) believers are, in fact (regardless of external appearances), united in Christ. And this reality should drive me to pray for and love all my brothers and sisters in Christ. Part of this loving will require me to warn brothers and sisters who wander into damaging and unbiblical doctrines.

God Bless

P.S. Sorry for the overlong comment.

Jim B.’s last blog post..Sometimes I Weep